


a 


: 
4 











BRITISH ARTISTS 


ee 


RAEBURN 


Edited hy $. C. KAINES SMITH 


BRITISH ARVISTS 


EDITED BY 


S. C. KAINES SMITH, M.A., M.B.E. 


The volumes at present arranged comprise the following 
here given in (approximately) chronological order. 


XV. 


Vol. 
The XVI.Century Painters. XVI. 
With a note on the influ- 
ence of Holbein. 
Cornelius Johnson and 
Jamesone. 
Dobson and Walker. With Sap di' 
a note on the work of Van XVIII. 
Dyck in England. XIX. 
Lely and Kneller. XX. 
J. Riley, Greenhill, J. M. 
Wright and Mary Beale. gk, 
Thornhill, Jervas, Dand- x f 
ridge, Richardson and XXIII. 
Hudson 
Hogarth. eS 
Richard Wilson and Joseph : 
Farington. XXV. 
Reynolds. XXVI. 
Gainsborough. XXVII. 
Romney. XXVIII. 
Wright of Derby. XXIX. 
. PaulSandby,Towne,Cozens. XXX. 
With a note on the rise of XxXI1 
water-colour painting. ; 
B.West, J.S. Copley, and G. XXX. 
Stuart. With a note on 
American painting in the 
XVIII. Century. 
Barker of Bath and the XXXII. 
Bath Painters. XXXIV. 
XXXV. Watts. 


Kauffman, Bartolozzi, 
and Zoffany. Witha 
note on Foreign Mem- 
bers of the Royal 
Academy in 1768. 


Downman and Dance. 
Hoppner. 

Opie and Cosway. 
Raeburn. 
Rowlandson. 

Morland and Ibbetson. 


John (old)Crome. With 
a note on the Norwich 
School. 


Lawrence. 

James Ward. 

Girtin and Bonington. 
Constable. 

Cotman. 

Cox. 

De Wint. 

Copley Fielding. 


Bewick and Clarkson 
Stanfield. With anote 


on the Newcastle 
group. 

Turner. 

Alfred Stevens. 


OTHERS IN PREPARATION. 





National Gallery of Scotland 
PORTRAIT OF THE ARTIST 


SIR HENRY RAEBURN 


(Frontispiece) | 





BRITISH ARTISTS 


EDITED BY 


S. C. KAINES SMITH, 
M.A., F.S.A. 


RAEBURN 


E. RIMBAULT DIBDIN 





NEW YORK 


FREDERICK A. STOKES COMPANY 
PUBLISHERS 


First published in 1925 


Made and Printed in Great Britain by 
The Camelot Press Limited, 
Southampton 


EDITOR’S FOREWORD. 


I FORGET when it was that I first saw The Macnab. 
It was a very long time ago, and until last year, 
at Wembley, I had not seen it again: yet I found, 
to my delight, that there was scarcely a stroke of 
it that I did not remember perfectly. Moreover, 
when I come to examine my experience, I find every 
great picture by Raeburn that I have ever seen 
possesses, so far as I am concerned, this same 
quality of indelibility. The Lieut.-Colonel McMurdo, 
and the inimitable Mrs. H. W. Lauzun in 
the National Gallery, hold their own with the 
same insistence from the days when I used to 
lecture at the National Gallery, and indeed, to 
recount the names of Raeburns that cannot be 
forgotten, would be merely to give a list of those 
that I have seen. 

It is difficult to define the source of this quality, 
but I have always felt that there is in Raeburn’s 
work a complete absence of the interposition of 
any traditional or conventional method between 
the artist and the spectator of his picture; 
a certain honesty and freshness that carry 


Vv 


vi Editor’s Foreword 


conviction, and make the method integral with 
the result. 

This directness appears to me to be one of 
the most essential qualities of greatness, and 
_ Raeburn, perhaps because of his remoteness 
from the atmosphere of cosmopolitanism which 
had invaded London in matters touching the 
art of painting, has it in a remarkable 
degree. 

What was needed to provide a setting for the 
quality of the artist was precisely the work Mr. 
Dibdin has done for this series; he has brought 
together facts, and has abjured fancies. While 
it is true that he has dispelled some of the atmo- 
sphere of romance which Allan Cunningham had 
sought to throw about his subject, he has succeeded, 
on the other hand, in giving us a picture of Sir 
Henry Raeburn, which, in a great measure, accounts 
for the forceful simplicity, and workmanlike 
directness of his art. 

The businesslike practicality itself, of the painter 
who painted as a business, in business hours, and 
lived the pleasant life of his acquired position of a 
gentleman of means outside those business hours, 

ds its reflection in what we may call a practicality 
of his handling of his medium; while his insight 
into character, always shrewd, and sometimes 
humorous, a kind of dry, penetrative humour 
characteristic of his race, shows itself in the fresh- 
ness and vigour with which he places real human 
beings on his canvas. 

Our debt to Mr. Dibdin is great for his exercise 


Editor’s Foreword vil 


of qualities very like those of the painter whose 
life he has written. 
S. C. KAINES SMITH. 
City ART GALLERY, 
LEEDs. 
24th April, 1925. 





PREFACE. 


RAEBURN is so great a figure in the history of 
British painting that an adequate account of his 
life and work is to be desired. His early biographers, 
when the collection of material was a comparatively 
easy task, unfortunately failed to make good use 
of their opportunities ; and Sir Walter Armstrong, 
writing in 1901, although he detected some errors in 
the narratives of his predecessors, and found some 
new matter, does not seem to have examined all 
the details of his theme with a thoroughness com- 
mensurate with the pretensions of his handsome 
and well-illustrated volume. He provided a list 
of Raeburn’s paintings, but its incompleteness is 
sufficiently shown by comparison with the list 
printed ten years later in the Connoisseur volume, 
after Mr. James Greig’s ‘Life.’ Mr. Edward 
Pinnington, Mr. James L. Caw, Mr. Greig, and 
other writers have made useful incursions into the 
terra incognita of Raeburn’s life, but we still know 
too little about it. A full century after Raeburn’s 
death his life story, as we have it, is rather like 
those ancient maps of Africa, on which the coastal 
towns, mouths of rivers, details of the lower Nile, 


ix 


x Preface 


and the Sahara are duly indicated; and the vast 
interior is agreeably patterned by the industrious 
chartographer with imaginary figures of lions, 
elephants, ostriches, and naked savages with bows 
and arrows. 

The smooth smiling verdure of a Highland bog 
is not more deceptive than was the prospect Il 
imagined before me, when I undertook with a 
light heart to write of Raeburn; conscious that I 
had a wide and life-long knowledge of and 
admiration for his work, as well as of the 
city where he was born, lived, and died; and 
had read nearly all that had been written about 
him. 

However extensive one’s acquaintance may be 
with what is known on any subject, it is only on 
sitting down to write about it that the gaps in our 
knowledge appear. Ifoundthat Allan Cunningham 
and William Raeburn Andrew had not only omitted 
to report much that it was desirable we should 
know, but had presented their blend of fact and 
fiction distorted by a conception of Sir Henry 
Raeburn probably invented by his descendants to 
match his title, and almost certainly not very like 
the actual man. I have tried to get back through 
the fog to the latter: the God-made being always 
preferable to the man-created. On the relatively 
small scale allowed by this series it has not, of 
course, been possible to do all that my love of the 
subject prompted ; but I have been able to correct, 
on what appears to be sound evidence, a good deal 
that was erroneous; and I have endeavoured to 


Preface x1 


present a coherent picture of the man, in conformity 
with the facts and acts of his career; not as I or 
any one else may have imagined him. For the 
doing of this, all the space at my disposal was 
required, so I had to avoid, as far as I could, 
discursions on Scottish life and Scottish art, 
Edinburgh and its citizens, the people who sat to 
Raeburn, and other topics with which the biographi- 
cal narrative might have been appropriately and 
agreeably varied. 

When one writes the life of a man who died 
more than a century ago, it is a matter of course 
_that the construction is one for which the writer 
is indebted to others for the bricks with which he 
builds up his edifice: his part is only the archi- 
tectural arrangement of material. It is the first 
duty of a biographer to take into account and 
weigh what has been written by others on the 
subject, and he cannot avoid using facts they have 
made known. No honest writer would, however, 
take exception to his doing so, provided due 
acknowledgment is made. To all my predecessors: 
as noted in the Bibliography, I gladly make such 
acknowledgment now. 

For much more than such passive aid I have 
pleasure in thanking many friendly helpers who 
have taken a lively interest in my enquiries, and 
in one way or another have added considerably 
to the value of this monograph. Mr. W. Forbes 
Gray, F.R.S.E., F.S.A., Scot., Chairman of the 
Old Edinburgh Club, made researches for me, 
advised me on many points, and read in MS. the 


xii Preface 


biographical part of this book. My friend of many 
years Mr. D. Croal Thomson, did me a similar service 
by reading the portion of my MS. which treats of 
Raeburn’s pictures and his position in art. Another 
old friend to whom, alas, my thanks cannot be 
expressed, was W. D. McKay, R.S.A., LL.D., 
with whom, after much helpful correspondence, I 
spent considerable time, not very long before his 
death, in discussing difficult points. The Assistant 
Secretary of the R.S.A., Mr. Henry Hastings, was 
at the same time continually helpful, Mr. McKay’s 
successor as Secretary to the R.S.A., Mr. James 
Paterson, R.S.A., R.W.S., P.R.S.W., has proved 
equally kind in his readiness to help. Mr. R. Hill 
Stewart, F.F.A., the General Manager, and Mr. T. 
MacMaster, the Secretary of the Caledonian In- 
surance Company were at considerable pains to 
provide me with interesting facts as to Raeburn’s 
connection with that company. I am indebted 
also for help in various ways to Mr. John K. 
Ballantyne, Mr. T. C. F. Brotchie, Superintendent 
of the Glasgow Museums and Art Galleries, Mr. 
James L. Caw, Director of the Scottish National 
Gallery, Mr. George Clausen. R.A., Miss Deuchar, Mr. 
H. D. Dickie and Miss Dickie, Mr. G. A. Dunlop, 
Director of the Warrington Art Gallery and 
Museum, Miss M. M. Guthrie, Mr. Gemmell 
Hutchison, R.S.A., Mr. Arthur Kay, Mr. W. 
R. M. Lamb, M.A., Secretary of the Royal 
Academy, Mr. Peter Munnoch, Mr. Frank Rinder, 
Mr. W. Roughead, W.S., and Mr. Marion H. 
Spielmann, F.S.A., and to Sir William H. Raeburn 


Preface xili 


for permission to reproduce the portraits of Robert 
Hay of Drumelzier, and Lady Inglis, in his collec- 
tion. Last but not least among helpers I desire 
to thank the officials of the British Museum Reading 
Room, the Edinburgh University Library, and the 
Liverpool Public Library. 


E. RIMBAULT DIBDIN. 





RRS * 
) ile eae 


CONTENTS. 


PREFAC , z A : : : 


CHAPTER I: BIOGRAPHICAL AND PERSONAL 


re II: ASSOCIATION WITH ARTISTS 


3 III: SomME CONTEMPORARY 
ESTIMATES é . 4 
< IV: INFLUENCE ON CONTEMPOR- 


ARIES AND SUCCESSORS s 
ae V: THE QUALITY OF THE ARTIST 
APPENDIX I: BIBLIOGRAPHY . : 2 


II: List oF PICTURES IN PUBLIC 


GALLERIES se é . 


XV 


71 


106 
129 


149 


155 





et ON a BR et 


tio. OF ILLUSTRATIONS. 


SIR HENRY RAEBURN . . Frontispiece 


HENRY DAVID INGLIS 

Mr. AND Mrs. ROBERT CAMPBELL 
ROBERT Hay 

Mrs. Hosson 

Lt.-CoL. BRycE McMurpDo 

LapDy INGLIS ° : : é 


JAMES WARDROP 


BR xvii 


24 
44 
64 





CHAPTER I. 
BIOGRAPHICAL AND PERSONAL. 


‘ Y dear old Stockbridge,’ as David 

Roberts, R.A., affectionately wrote 

of it, is not and never has been a 
notably fashionable quarter of Edinburgh ; 
but it enjoys the distinction that it was the 
birthplace of two very eminent painters: 
Roberts himself, and Henry Raeburn, the 
greatest master in portraiture that Scotland 
can boast. He was full forty years old when 
Roberts was born not far from his house, 
in a ‘ land’ where David’s parents lived and 
his father worked as a shoemaker or cobbler, 
but it is pleasant to have the story recorded 
by William Raeburn Andrew that Raeburn, 
walking in his garden one morning, en- 
countered a small boy who had no business 
there, but who was freely forgiven on his 
exhibiting a sketch he had been making of a 
Gothic window in the house. He had 
arrived ‘over the garden wall, but he had 
now free access, encouragement and in- 
struction from Raeburn.’ How far the boy, 
who became famous as David Roberts, was 
indebted to Raeburn in the matter of 

I 


2 Raeburn 


instruction is not recorded, nor do we know 
if it was before or after a passion for drawing 
led to his being apprenticed to Gavin Beugo, 
housepainter, member of a family that had 
at least one artist member in John Beugo, 
engraver of Alexander Nasmyth’s portrait 
of Robert Burns for the first Edinburgh 
edition of his poems, and also of several 
Raeburn portraits. It is to be inferred that 
Raeburn’s favour to the boy endured, as 
W. R. Andrew says that he ‘ continued to 
have a friendly interest in the family as 
long as he lived.’ There is no trace of the 
agreeable legend in the life of Roberts which 
James Ballantine compiled from his auto- 
biographical notes. 

Henry Raeburn was born at Stockbridge 
on Thursday, 4th March, 1756, and appar- 
ently baptised at St. Cuthbert’s Church on 
the following Sunday, 7th March. The entry 
in the parish records, as quoted by Cumber- 
land Hill, is as follows: ‘Sunday, 7th 
March, 1756.—Robert Raeburn, yarn-boiler 
at Stockbridge, and spouse Ann Elder; a 
son, Henry, born 4th March, instant. 
Witness: Thomas Spence and _ Robert 
Dixon, weavers in Edinburgh.’ 

To Cumberland Hill we are indebted for a 
description, based on personal knowledge, 
of the locality: ‘ The yarn-boiling premises 
of the elder Raeburn and of his son William, 
who afterwards carried on the business, as 


Biographical and Personal 3 


well as their dwelling-house, were situated 
at the side of the mill-lade, exactly where the 
western part of Horne Lane now stands. 
Their dwelling-house was a neat one-storeyed, 
slated cottage, that stood in the midst of a 
small piece of pretty garden ground, a little 
to the west of the yarn-boiling premises. 
As this house continued to be occupied by 
some of the descendants of the family up 
to the time that the business was given up, 
there is every probability that in this house 
Sir Henry was born. It was a pleasantly 
situated little spot. Immediately behind the 
house ran the mill-lade, at that time pure and 
limpid. To the north was a beautiful fruit 
orchard, covering the ground where Saunders 
Street now stands.’ 

David Roberts, describing Stockbridge 
as he remembered it at the beginning of the 
nineteenth century, wrote: ‘The villagers 
were almost all equally poor. There were 
three or four shops kept by old women, and 
the men were generally engaged in outdoor 
occupations, such as masons, carpenters, 
quarrymen, and carters—a somewhat 
primitive, and, as my poor mother used to 
say, “‘ a godless race.” ’ 

Stockbridge, long since swallowed up by 
the growth of Edinburgh, is now a closely 
built locality ; but in 1756 it was a village 
of five or six hundred inhabitants (they 
numbered 524 in 1743) in the parish of St. 


4 Raeburn 


Cuthbert’s, or West Kirk, and separated by 
a considerable distance from the city, which 
had not yet begun to set about building the 
‘New’ Town on the north side of the Nor’ 
Loch, in fulfilment of Daniel Defoe’s far- 
seeing anticipation half a century before that 
the High Street would be forsaken, and the 
city would ‘run all out of its gates to the 
north.’ Other and similar villages strung 
on the Water of Leith, because of the water- 
power it supplied, were Dean, Silvermills, 
and Canonmills. Approached by one very 
steep country road, Stockbridge had prob- 
ably less communication with Edinburgh 
than with the Port of Leith. I found no 
trace of it, or of any Raeburns, in the list of 
citizens in the first Edinburgh Directory 
published in 1773; although the family 
yarn-boiling business was then a_ well- 
established one, and Raeburn’s brother was 
actually noted in the list of Extraordinary 
Council Deacons ; nor is it to be found later 
in the 1788 Directory. 

Of Robert Raeburn and his ancestry the 
one fact certainly known hitherto is that he 
was a yarn-boiler at Stockbridge in 1756. 
To this I am able to add the information, 
obtained from the Scottish Record Society’s 
Register of Marriages for the Parish of 
Edinburgh, 1701-1750, that “Robert Rae- 
burn, weaver in N.E.p., married Ann Elder, 
d. of Henry Elder, indw. in Aberdour par., 


Biographical and Personal 5 


now in N.W.p. 9th November, 1740.’ W.R. 
Andrew, although a descendant, evidently 
knew no more, for he was content to repeat 
Allan Cunningham to the effect that ‘ his 
ancestors were of the sturdy Border stock— 
reiving pastoral lairds—husbandmen in 
peace, and soldiers in war, till the days of 
disorder ended with the Union of the Crowns, 
upon which they laid aside the helmet and 
sword, and peacefully cultivated the ground 
during succeeding generations.’ This 
definite statement is weakened by what 
follows: ‘They probably took their name 
from a hill-farm in Annandale, still held by 
Sir Walter Scott’s kinsfolk. Sir Henry used 
to say that he was a Raeburn of that ilk, 
his forbears having had it before the Scotts. 
On his shield is a Rae, or Roe-deer, drinking 
from a burn running at its feet. The crest 
is a Roe’s head, with the motto, “‘ Robur 
sm Deo.”’ 

W. R. Andrew, in his next paragraph 
makes, with what has the air of veiled un- 
belief, a reference in practically the words of 
Cunningham, to the labours of ‘a Northern 
antiquarian, who, unwilling to _ believe, 
perhaps, that any one so distinguished could 
come from such an ancestry, resolved to find 
for him a loftier origin ; and accordingly set 
up a genealogical tree, which averred, in the 
mystic language of allegorical biography, 
that he was a direct descendant from the 


6 Raeburn 


Raeburns of Raeburn, a family distinguished 
in the Scottish wars, who had won worthily 
the honours of knighthood, and were allied, 
moreover, in blood and by marriage to many 
of those of martial fame. Whether this 
lineage be rooted in reality or romance is not 
very material in the history of one whose 
fame arises from his being the Reynolds of 
the North, and the worthy companion of the 
most eminent men of the British School of 
Painting.’ 

With this entirely sensible pronouncement 
Allan Cunningham and W. R. Andrew leave 
the subject, where we also may be content to 
leave it until some definite evidence emerges. 
At present there is none beyond the fact 
that Sir Henry Raeburn is said to have 
used a crest and a coat of arms, which is 
scarcely conclusive. W. R. Andrew, writing 
more than sixty years after his ancestor’s 
death and residing in England, knew, and 
frankly shows that he knew, nothing de- 
finitely on the subject, and merely set down, 
with careful reserve, what he had been told, 
or had read in Cunningham’s memoir. In 
‘An Ordinary of Arms in the Public Register 
of all arms and bearings in Scotland,’ by Sir 
James Balfour Paul, Lyon King at Arms 
(1893), there is a record of a grant in 1841 
to Raeburn of St. Bernard’s (the painter’s 
son), “ Arg. on a piece of ground in base vert a 
roebuck statant ppr., drinking out of a burn 


Biographical and Personal 4 


or brook running bendways az. ; on a canton 
erm. a knight’s helmet ppr.’ From this my 
conclusion is, in absence of any proof to the 
contrary, that the Raeburn arms only came 
into existence after the painter’s death. 
Robert Raeburn, then, ‘ removed to Stock- 
bridge, married Ann Elder, commenced 
manufacturer, became the proprietor of 
mills... ..~  Other-.biographers... have 
assumed that he removed from the Border 
country, but this is not stated on early 
authority. All Raeburns probably were from 
the south, but the migration may have been 
by an earlier generation. Robert was 
described as ‘ Burgess and Freeman’ in the 
Heriot’s Hospital Records, which seems to 
imply that he was a native of the town. 
Reference to the valuable publications 
of the Scottish Record Society and to old 
Edinburgh Directories shows that the name 
Raeburn (Reaburn, or Reburn) occurred in 
the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, 
and was by no means uncommon in the 
eighteenth century. Without making an 
exhaustive search I have found twenty-two 
entries of marriages, testaments, and deaths : 
4 labourers, 3 gardeners, 2 weavers, 2 wrights, 
and 1 each either following the trade of 
(or, if a female, married to) a servitor, 
metster, tailor, indweller, maltman, mariner, 
silk-dyer, bookbinder, hairdresser, perfumer, 
and soldier. Turning to the Directories we 


8 Raeburn 


find that several Raeburns were inhabiting 
Edinburgh in the eighteenth century. There 
are none in the lists of residents for 1773-6, 
but in 1778 there was a ‘ Wil. Raeburn, 
ladies’ hair-dresser and perf., bridge str.,’ 
who continued long in business. In 1788, 
in addition to Henry, then established in 
George Street, we find this William Raeburn, 
perfumer, and George Raeburn, tailor, in 
Leith, who continued in the Directories 
until 1800. William Raeburn evidently 
became an eminent man in his walk of art, 
as he was styled ‘ perfumer to H.R.H. the 
Prince of Wales.’ His shop was 13 North 
Bridge, and his house was at the foot of 
Carrubber’s Close. He died* on 24th March, 
1812, and in the 1812 Directory the entry 
became ‘Mrs. Raeburn, Perfumer, etc.’ 
In that year she effected an insurance 
against fire with the Caledonian Insurance 
Company, cancelling an earlier one, probably 
dated 1805, and effected by her husband, 
for £1,000 on the building of her tenement on 
the North Bridge, ‘ possessed by herself 
and her tenants. Pomatum occasionally 
made therein,’ a further sum of {£1,000 on 


* There are records of two marriages of William 
Raeburn, not improbably the same person: in 1775, 
when he was described as a hairdresser, and married a 
daughter of a Musselburgh farmer; and in 1785, when he 
was styled perfumer, and married a Leith merchant’s 
daughter. 


Biographical and Personal 9 


stock-in-trade and utensils, and £300 on 
household furniture, etc. in her dwelling- 
house, No. 37 North Bridge. In the 
Directories her name continued until 1817 
when there was only Mrs. Raeburn, Mound 
Place, seemingly indicating that she had 
retired from business. In or before 1823 
she probably retired from the world, as her 
name ceased. In 1819, James Raeburn, 
perfumer, Prince Street, made a single 
meteoric appearance. 

Peter, evidently a struggling member of 
the clan, let furnished lodgings in 1796; in 
1800 he had become a grocer; in 1811 he 
again let lodgings ; in 1814 he had returned 
to grocery, and, after 1816 he disappeared. 
In 21 years this rolling stone had eight 
different addresses. He may. have been 
succeeded in business by Robert, who was 
announced to let lodgings from 1824 to 1826. 
Alexander, a spirit-dealer, is recorded in 
1823 and 1824, and William announced the 
same trade as his from 1826 to 1830: the 
last year for which I searched the Directory. 
James was a broker in the Cowgate from 
1827 to 1830, and a Mrs. Raeburn followed 
the same profession at another number in 
the Cowgate in 1828 and 1829. From 1817 
to 1819 John Raeburn was an ‘ ordained 
surveyor’ at 1m Market Street. In 1818 
James Raeburn, architect, St. Bernard’s 
Well, Stockbridge, made an appearance. 


Io Raeburn 


Three years later he removed to Royal 
Circus (or S. E. Circus Place), where he was 
still noted in 1830. In 1821 there is a single 
entry of George Raeburn, a writer, at 3 
Gilmore Place. 

A dozen Raeburns sufficiently prominent 
in the community to get their names entered 
in the Directory show that persons of that 
name were not uncommon in Edinburgh. 
None, it may be concluded, were descendants 
of Sir Henry. We do not know if his brother 
had any children ; in fact we know practic- 
ally nothing about him except that he carried 
on his father’s business until he died, on 6th 
December, 1810. His name appears in the 
1811 Directory, but in that for 1812 the 
entry is changed to Mrs. Raeburn, and her 
name remains until 1821. 

Nothing is known about the infancy and 
early years of Raeburn, except that in his 
eighth year he was left an orphan; his ~ 
mother, who had survived her husband, 
dying in August 1763. The child was left 
to the care of his only brother William, 
twelve years or more his senior, who carried 
on the business. For so young a man the 
double duty was most likely rather a heavy 
burden, and it is not surprising to find that 
he was ready to relieve himself by sending 
Henry to George Heriot’s Hospital. 

That Institution was founded after the 
death of George Heriot, ‘jeweller to the 


Biographical and Personal Iz 


King’s most excellent Majesty’ in 1624; 
who left the residue of his fortune, after 
providing legacies for relatives and servants, 
and provision for two natural daughters, 
‘for and towards the founding and erection 
of an Hospital . . . for the maintenance, 
relief, bringing up, and education of so many 
poor fatherless boys, freemen’s sons, of the 
town of Edinburgh, as the means which I 
give, etc. . . . shall amount or come to.’ 
Thanks to the good management of the 
Institution, and the judicious investment of 
its funds, the number of boys at the Hospital 
had increased from 30 in 1659 to I40 in 1763. 
There had, however, been periods of difficulty 
in the earlier years, and during one of these 
Robert Sandilands, of Meldrumsheugh, in 
1695 bought for £2,000 the right to appoint 
two boys in perpetuity, ‘within ten years 
and six months of age at the time they are 
presented, and clean and wholesome.’ 
After the death of Robert Sandilands his 
eldest daughter, Sarah, as his legal repre- 
sentative, exercised the right; and _ she 
presented Henry Raeburn, who, being found 
eligible, was admitted in April 1765, just 
after entering his tenth year. In the third 
edition of William Steven’s History of George 
Heriot’s Hospital (1872) the date is given as 
1764, but Cumberland Hill’s evidence is 
satisfying as to the later date, though not 
so on another matter. An easy computation 


12 Raeburn 


based on dates would show that Sarah 
Sandilands was by this time an elderly 
person, but according to Hill she, having 
afterwards married Mr. Durham of Boghead, 
Linlithgowshire, had issue, and her grand- 
daughter, Mrs. Durham Weir, was present 
at Hopetoun House in 1822, when Raeburn 
was knighted by King George IV. Mr. 
James Greig correctly describes the lady as 
in 1765 ‘Relict of Thomas Durham of 
Boghead.’ Hull was doubtless misled by the 
fact that, according to Scottish usage, she 
continued for legal purposes to be known 
by her maiden name. 

The original plan of the persons who 
framed the rules and regulations of George 
Heriot’s Hospital, was in pursuance of the 
founder’s intention, ‘only to relieve the 
poor,’ and so the boys were only to be 
“taught to read and write distinctly, and 
cast all manner of accounts; also the rudi- 
ments of the Latin language.’ This pro- 
gramme was gradually widened, but it would 
be hard to say to what extent this had taken 
place by 1765. From a Memoir of George 
Heriot, published by Constable in 1822, (the 
year in which The Fortunes of Nigel 
appeared), we learn that the boys in the 
Hospital “are now taught Greek, Mathe- 
matics, etc. If the professions chosen by 
the boys require a knowledge of drawing or 
navigation they are sent to teachers for that 


Biographical and Personal 13 


purpose ; those who aim at learned pro- 
fessions may be sent to the University for 
four years, and allowed {30 a year... 
most of the boys were apprenticed to trades 
in Edinburgh, and are allowed fro sterling 
yearly for five years, being equal to an 
apprentice fee of £50. At the end of the 
apprenticeship, on producing a certificate of 
good conduct from the master, they receive 
£5, to buy a suit of clothes.’ 

This was a fairly liberal programme, having 
regard to the value of money at the time, as 
indicated by the fact that the three teachers 
appointed in 1759 each received a salary of 
£17, with thirty shillings extra for a gown. 
It is to be hoped that the pewter platters 
used at table in the Hospital were better 
supplied with nutriment for the body than 
these starveling pedagogues were likely to 
provide for the minds of the boys they 
taught. W. R. Andrews remarks that 
“singularly few of those brought up in this 
Scottish Christ’s Hospital became distin- 
guished in after life.’ The explanation is 
that the aim of the Governors was only to 
turn out a good type of apprentice for the 
use of the local tradesman, and any lad who 
became ‘distinguished’ did so in spite of 
his start in life. 

The boys, like those of the London Blue- 
coat School, were compelled to wear a 
distinctive costume. The statutes, compiled 


I4 Raeburn 


in 1627, enjoined that ‘ they sall be comlie 
and decentlie apparrelled as becumeth both 
in thair lynning and cloathis. And thair 
apparrell sal be of sad Russet cloath doub- 
lettis breikis and stockingis or hose and 
gownes of the same colour with black hattis 
and stringis whiche they sal be bund to weare 
during thair aboad in the said Hospittal and 
no uther.’ Two centuries and a half later 
(1872), the dress for resident boys was a 
dark grey Melton jacket and cap, with light 
grey tweed vest and trousers, and a Kilmar- 
nock bonnet for week-day wear. The 
“apparrell’ of the eighteenth century, of 
which I have found no description, was 
probably something transitional between 
these two specifications, both suitably dismal 
for charity-school boys, and in marked con- 
trast to that of High School and other boys, 
as described by Henry Cockburn, who was 
born in 1779: ‘a round black hat, shirt 
fastened at the neck by a black ribbon and, 
except on dress days, unruffled, a double- 
breasted cloth waistcoat, rather large, a 
single-breasted jacket which in due time got 
a tail and became a coat, brown corduroy 
breeches, tied at the knees by a showy knot 
of brown cotton tape . . . coat and waist- 
coat always of glaring colours such as bright 
blue, grass green and scarlet.’ Creatures so 
gay of hue probably invented and used the 
taunting rhyme with which Edinburgh 


Biographical and Personal T5 


school-boys continued to shout after Heriot 
boys, as an incitement to combat until in 
1886 the Hospital became a secondary day 
school : 

Heriéti, 

Wee short coatie ! 

W. R. Andrew was not able to say in what 
way a taste for drawing was created and 
developed in the boy who ‘during his 
youthful education did not discover any 
particular propensity to the art in which he 
was destined so remarkably to excel.’ This, 
in the next sentence, is contradicted by the 
information that at the arithmetic class, 
when the boys were amusing themselves in 
drawing figures on their slates, his displayed 
a very striking superiority to those of the 
other boys. This may have been observed 
by the teacher and may have resulted in his 
being taught drawing—one of the extras 
above referred to—with a view to fitting him 
for some. trade in which it would be useful. 
In this connection there seems to be illumina- 
tion in the fact that (I quote Mr. Greig) ‘ on 
the 4th of June, 1770, Henry Raeburn and 
Francis Ronaldson were each awarded for 
their skill in writing, etc., the sum of one 
pound, five shillings, sterling, accruing from 
the Dean of Guild Heriot’s Mortification. In 
the following year Henry was again considered 
bestZentitled to a similar reward.’ As the 


CR 


16 Raeburn 


boy displayed such special dexterity in 
penmanship as to earn him prizes it is not 
at all improbable that he was instructed in 
the rudiments of drawing and perhaps design 
in order to qualify him for some trade in 
which such manual skill would be useful. 
My own experience was that even in the 
latter half of the nineteenth century teachers 
of writing in Edinburgh schools regarded it 
as including ornamental pen-work and even 
ambitious painted ‘illuminations,’ which 
were proudly displayed at the “ examination,’ 
when parents and friends assembled for the 
annual prize-giving. If a prize was given 
for work of this kind it was described as for 
‘ Writing.’ 

Mr. Pinnington points out that from and 
after 1760 the Trustees’ Academy classes 
were held at Heriot’s Hospital. In 1771, 
when Raeburn was probably still there, 
Alexander Runciman was appointed Master of 
the Academy, in succession to a Frenchman 
named Pavillon. Runciman, then 35 years 
old, and newly arrived from five years of study 
in Rome, was a draughtsman of considerable 
ability, and a very ambitious painter. 

Of the six or seven years during which the 
foundations of the boy’s education and the 
development of his character were laid we 
have as little knowledge as of the previous 
period which passed at Stockbridge. There 
he was outside of the town on the north, at 


Biographical and Personal 17 


the Hospital he was on its southern border, 
and practically in the country, although 
Lauriston, where the Hospital stands, was 
not far from the busy Grassmarket. To the 
south, only the common-lands known as 
“The Meadows’ and the Bruntsfield Links 
beyond them divided it from the open coun- 
try. On the eastern side they were equally 
near to Salisbury Crags, Arthur’s Seat, and 
Duddingston Village and loch. The rule of 
the Hospital was severely monastic: the 
men and women employed in it were required 
to be unmarried, the six women servants 
over 45 years of age; but probably the boys 
in their leisure hours were free to roam the 
country, fish in the burns, perhaps play 
primitive golf on the Links, or even to dive 
down a close for a visit to the turmoil of the 
Grassmarket and the picturesque grime of 
the Cowgate. 

With a commendable delicacy for the 
memory of his distinguished ancestor, W. R. 
Andrew avoids any mention of the fact that 
on leaving school Raeburn was. apprenticed 
to a tradesman. He skilfully makes the 
transition thus: ‘Soon after attaining the 
age of fifteen he began to paint beautiful 
water-colour miniatures of his friends. In 
what manner this taste first showed itself 
is not exactly known; but it certainly was 
altogether spontaneous, without lesson or 
example. About this time he was in the 


18 Raeburn 


employment of Mr. Gilliland, an eminent 
jeweller in Edinburgh.’ 

The fact that young Raeburn was accepted 
as apprentice by ‘an eminent jeweller’ is 
pretty good evidence that his preceptors were 
able to give a satisfactory account of his 
qualification to succeed in a craft that re- 
quired hands and brains of more than normal 
cleverness. A jeweller in the eighteenth 
century was not a smart salesman of goods 
bought from or sent on sale by a wholesale 
manufacturer in Birmingham: he and his 
workmen and apprentices had to be skilled 
craftsmen, capable of making gold, silver, 
gems and the like into more or less beautiful 
objects of art. It was indeed an admission, 
though only as it were by a back door, into 
the Palace of Art ; the same through which 
Gainsborough also entered it. The splen- 
dour of the trade had ere this deteriorated 
from that of the good old days of George 
Heriot, when his most gracious Majesty 
would drop in now and again for a ‘ twa- 
handed crack’ with his jeweller, who was 
also his banker, and, upon occasion, money- 
lender. Regular banks had arisen and taken 
away this most profitable part of the jewellers’ 
business. It was still, however, a good and 
gentlemanly trade, and certainly was just 
the one to be selected by the Governors of 
Heriot’s Hospital for a specially skilled 
and promising pupil. 


Biographical and Personal 19 


It was most likely in 1772, at the age of 
16, that Henry Raeburn was indentured to 
James Gilliland, of Parliament Close, near 
to St. Giles’ Church, which at that time was 
the nucleus of clustering barnacle-like shops 
and stalls that surrounded it. There is 
again, unfortunately, a dearth of informa- 
tion about this all-important period of 
Raeburn’s life, on which he entered a raw and 
not over-tutored school-boy, and from which 
he emerged a full-blown and efficient painter 
of portraits. Probably, after the usage of 
the period, he lived on the premises, and 
either slept under the counter, or in an attic 
of Gilliland’s house, which seems to have 
been not far from the shop, at No. 10 Nicolson 
Street ; at least that is the address at which 
Mrs. Gilliland dwelt in 1796, presumably a 
widow, as the eminent jeweller’s name was 
no longer in the Directory. At first the boy 
would, whether he liked it or not, have to 
apply himself with diligence to learning his 
craft, in which apparently he attained to 
proficiency. The Royal Scottish Academy 
has among its treasures an elegant silver 
toddy ladle, which is said to have been made 
by Raeburn as a lad. The workmanship is 
faultless, and the design is good; the bowl 
of the ladle is stamped A.G. There is no 
hall-mark. 

Whether or not this article was made by 
Raeburn, there is no doubt about another 


20 Raeburn 


piece of work placed to his credit, for we 
have first-hand evidence about it from Dr. 
Andrew Duncanin his ‘ Tribute to the Memory 
of Sir Henry Raeburn,’ spoken and then 
printed in the year after the painter’s death. 
In this Dr. Duncan recalled how, after the 
death on 15th May, 1778, of his young 
friend Charles, son of Dr. Erasmus Darwin, 
the poet, he went to Gilliland with a lock of 
the dead man’s hair, in order to bespeak a 
memorial ring of the kind then much in 
vogue. ‘ He told me that one of his present 
apprentices was a young man of great genius 
and could prepare for me in hair a memorial 
that would demonstrate both taste and art. 
Young Raeburn was immediately called, and 
proposed to execute on a small trinket, 
which might be hung at a watch, a muse 
weeping over an urn, marked with the 
initials of Charles Darwin. The trinket 
was finished by Raeburn in a manner which 
to me afforded manifest proof of very 
superior genius, and I still preserve it as a 
memorial of the singular and early merit 
both of Darwin and Raeburn.’ If this 
example of the painter’s craft-work could 
now be found it would be a highly interesting 
memento, and it is quite likely that it still 
exists, but is stowed away in one of those 
little stores of obsolete jewellery that exists 
in many old houses. Dr. Duncan’s story may 
or may not be true, but it has to be kept in 


Biographical and Personal 2I 


view that he was an octogenarian who, to 
judge by some of his statements which can 
be checked by independent evidence, wrote 
without verifying his recollections, and often 
blundered. 

The story implies that Raeburn was still 
in the service of Gilliland in the middle of 
1778, six years after he was indentured, 
though the regulation as to apprentices which 
I have quoted seems to imply that the 
usual term of service was five years, and 
biographers have agreed to accept Allan 
Cunningham’s statement that Gilliland, 
perceiving and encouraging his apprentice’s 
talent for portraiture, freed him before his 
time was up. We also have to take into 
account Allan Cunningham’s story, accepted 
by W. R. Andrew, that in 1778 Raeburn 
had a studio, fell in love with a sitter and 
married her. 

The growth, concurrently with his labours 
as a jeweller, of Raeburn’s skill in painting, 
is not easily to be traced. That he first 
painted in miniature was a natural beginning 
for a youth working alone without facilities 
for larger efforts, or means to get necessary 
materials. Miniatures too were familiar 
objects in a jeweller’s shop, as for them some 
sort of case or setting was a necessary 
accessory. Very likely commissions for such 
work were given in the course of trade, and 
Raeburn may have been incited to try 


22 Raeburn 


his hand at it by way of making some pocket 
money. It is even possible that Gilliland 
first suggested it—certainly he did nothing 
to discourage his apprentice, as we know 
from the story of his early connection with 
David Deuchar. I quote from it as it 
appeared in a_ well-written memoir of 
Raeburn, which appeared in the issue for 
January 1900 of Caledonian Jottings, a 
private publication of the Caledonian 
Insurance Company, of which it is interesting 
to note that Raeburn was one of the Directors 
at its foundation in 1805. The author’s 
name is not given, but, as the Company’s 
Manager at the time was a later David 
Deuchar, a descendant of Raeburn’s friend 
and patron, it may be regarded as having 
authority. Deuchar was a lapidary and seal 
engraver of exceptional skill, a goldsmith, 
and interested in all branches of art; he 
painted, modelled, and practised etching 
industriously, and published a large collection 
of plates copied chiefly from German, 
Dutch, and Flemish masters. His business, 
like that of the miniaturist, brought him 
into frequent communication with jewellers, 
and often going to see his neighbour Gilliland, 
he became well acquainted with young 
Raeburn, who is described as tall and 
handsome, with a frank, engaging manner. 
He ‘always had a kindly word for the 
pleasant-faced apprentice as he passed 


Biographical and Personal 23 


through the shop to the private room behind. 
On several occasions as he passed in, Deuchar 
noticed the lad hurriedly push something 
into a drawer as if to conceal what he had 
been doing. This stimulated Deuchar’s 
curiosity, and once when returning from the 
back room he quietly stepped behind Henry 
before the latter saw him, when to his 
surprise he found the boy engaged in gazing 
intently into a small mirror. ‘“ Hullo, 
Henry,” said he, “are you admiring your 
good looks? ’”’ “No,” said the boy, “ but 
I am trying to draw a likeness of myself,”’ 
and he produced a sheet of paper on which 
he had made a very creditable likeness of 
himself in pencil. On being asked if he had 
ever had lessons in drawing, he said no, 
but added that he earnestly wished he could 
afford to have them ; whereupon Mr. Deuchar 
said he would be glad to give him one or 
two lessons per week, after his closing hours, 
which would cost him nothing. This offer 
was joyfully accepted by Henry, who in a 
short time showed so great proficiency as to 
lead both Mr. Deuchar and Mr. Gilliland to 
the belief that he was a born artist, and that 
it would be the greatest of mistakes to try 
to make a mere goldsmith of him. Accord- 
ingly Raeburn was introduced to David 
Martin, then the fashionable portrait painter 
in Edinburgh, and became his pupil. While 
still nominally serving his apprenticeship 


24 Raeburn 


to Gilliland, Raeburn was allowed time for 
study, and also for the painting of miniatures, 
the loss of the apprentice’s assistance in the 
goldsmith’s work being made up to his 
master by an arrangement that the latter 
should share in the profits of the miniature 
painting.’ 

The writer of the article conjectures that 
Raeburn’s first miniature was a portrait of 
James Gilliland, the second being one of 
Deuchar. This is extant, in the possession of 
my friend Miss Deuchar. On paper pasted 
on the back of the case there is written : 
‘David Deuchar, Esq., of Morningside, by 
Sir Henry Raeburn, being the second portrait 
done by him during the time he was an 
apprentice to Mr. Gilland of Old Parliament 
Square, Edinburgh. Painted about 1773.’ 
The writing is old, but obviously it does not 
date before 1822, because the painter is 
described as Sizv Henry. It is to be noticed 
also that there is an error as to Gilliland’s 
name. As David Deuchar died in 1808, he 
was not the writer, who was probably a 
descendant, and set down as wellas he could 
remember what he had been told regarding 
the miniature. This, which is chiefly in a 
neutral tint, with only slight colour in the 
flesh, is quite efficiently executed, and, if it 
was only the second attempt by Raeburn 
in that style, is a very remarkable perform- 
ance, especially in that expression of alert 





In the possession of H. D, Dickie 
HENRY DAVID INGLIS 


SIR HENRY RAEBURN 


(face p, 24) 





Biographical and Personal 25 


vitality so characteristic of Raeburn’s 
portraiture. 

Miss Deuchar has two other miniatures 
attributed to Raeburn. One, of David 
Deuchar’s second wife, is a very capable 
piece of work, fuller in colour and more 
accomplished than his portrait of David, 
but not obviously from the hand of Raeburn. 
However we know too little about his 
method in this genre to be able to judge 
with certainty. The third, supposed to be 
another portrait of Deuchar is a much less 
capable performance, almost amateurish, 
and it does not greatly resemble him. Had 
I been shown the three ivories and told that 
one was Raeburn’s second attempt I should 
have picked this out as best answering the 
description. Mr. H. D. Dickie has an ex- 
cellent miniature of Henry David Inglis, 
advocate, said to be by Raeburn, and prob- 
ably by him, as Inglis was his brother-in-law. 

If Deuchar took Raeburn in hand and 
began to give him lessons as early as 1773 
there was ample time for him to supply a 
good groundwork of knowledge, especially 
to a youth of exceptional natural ability, 
before the introduction to David Martin, as 
that painter, after being long in London and 
Italy, working as assistant in Allan Ramsay’s 
picture factory, only returned to Edinburgh 
in 1775. 

Martin received Raeburn kindly and lent 


26 Raeburn 


him some of his own pictures to copy, but 
declined to give him instruction in painting 
or preparing his colours: a very important 
part of a painter’s work in the eighteenth 
century. Eventually he accused Raeburn 
of selling his copy of one of the pictures lent 
to him, and thereafter they pursued their 
separate ways apart. This is Allan Cunning- 
ham’s story, repeated by W. R. Andrew, but 
it may reasonably be doubted on the evidence 
of his own statement that ‘Raeburn... 
declared, when his own name was deservedly 
high, that the kind words of Martin were 
still in his ears, and his paintings before him.’ 
Raeburn was of a kindly disposition but he 
was honest, and would not have so spoken 
of a man to whom he owed little or nothing. 
I think it probable that the connection with 
Martin was closer than has been stated, and 
that Raeburn worked for him as a painter of 
costumes and accessories and even of replicas, 
as Martin had worked for Ramsay. 

Martin, although not a great painter, was 
a competent one, much affected as was 
natural by the influence of Ramsay, and it 
is probable that his aid, whether grudging 
or otherwise, was useful in the development 
of Raeburn’s skillin oil painting. The develop- 
ment was rapid, as is shown by the portrait 
of George Chalmers, of Pittencrieff, one of 
the too few pictures by him of which the 
date is certainly known, painted in 1776, a 


Biographical and Personal 25 


remarkable performance for a youth of twenty, 
who had not been through the schools. 
Raeburn was probably indebted to 
Deuchar among other things for his acquaint- 
ance with John Clerk, a clever youth, a 
year younger than himself, who was addicted 
to painting, without, however, allowing this 
addiction to prevent his steady success at 
the Bar, which was crowned by his elevation 
to the Bench as Lord Eldin in the year 
when Raeburn died: a name famous in 
Scottish annals of wit, revelry, and wisdom. 
Clerk’s father, besides his fame as ‘inventor 
of the Modern British System of Naval 
Tactics,’ which, it was claimed, effected, 
when put in practice, a number of the most 
signal victories of our Fleet in the latter 
part of the eighteenth century, was an 
amateur etcher of no mean skill, and a great 
patron of art, who would certainly be well 
known to Deuchar. The friendship subsisted, 
and Raeburn painted both father and son, 
the latter at least twice. The only incident 
of their intimacy that has survived to help 
out the meagre supply of material available 
for a biographer of Raeburn illustrates the 
frugal manner in which the Scottish youth 
of that day fared, when first trying to make 
their way in the world, even when they 
belonged to the upper classes: John Clerk’s 
grandfather was a baronet. Raeburn had 
been invited to dine with him at his 


28 Raeburn 


lodgings. The landlady brought in two plates 
(or ‘ ashets,’ as they call them in Scotland) ; 
on one were three herrings, on the other three 
potatoes. “‘ Is this a’? ’’ asked Clerk angrily. 
““ Ay, it’s a’’’ was the reply. “‘ Didna I tell 
ye, wumman,”’ cried Clerk, “ that a gentle- 
man was to dine wi’ me, an’ that ye were to 
get sax herrin’ an’ sax tatties ? ”’ 

Raeburn having somehow, like Gains- 
borough, arrived, thanks to innate genius, at 
definite excellence in art without the proper 
orthodox course of preliminary academic 
study, found himself very soon a successful 
portrait painter. It seems probable that 
after leaving the service of Gilliland he 
returned to Stockbridge to live with his 
brother, who was by this time well established 
in life. In a list of the Edinburgh Magis- 
trates and Town Council for 1774-5, William 
Reaburn (sic), weaver, Stockbridge, is set 
down as one of the Council Deacons. Through 
his influence the painter may have obtained 
commissions in his early years, and it is not 
unlikely that he followed the common 
practice of travelling in the country, painting 
portraits wherever he could get an order. 
He probably had a painting-room in town, 
most likely in the old town, as Stockbridge 
was not readily accessible, and proper studio 
lighting would not be easily arranged in a 
cottage such as Cumberland Hill described. 
He may have lived in Edinburgh, but, even 


Biographical and Personal 29 


then, occasional visits to his brother would 
make his appearance familiar to the resi- 
dents, especially to the ladies, as he was tall 
and handsome and had a fine presence. 
Allan Cunningham’s sentimental story about 
Raeburn’s wooing and consequent marriage 
is therefore manifest nonsense; a clumsy 
replica of his sufficiently stupid fiction about 
Gainsborough’s courtship. B. R. Haydon 
certainly had good reason for his emphatic 
critical estimate: ‘ There never was a man 
so unfit to be a biographer as Allan Cunning- 
ham. A poet by nature, he had no pleasure 
in resting alone on truth as the basis of the 
lives of the great men. He treats their 
characters as inventions, not as realities ; 
he put speeches into their mouths and 
amplified their sayings, as if they were the 
heroes of melodrama he had invented, or of 
a poem, where imagination was of more 
worth than fact. His Lives of the Painters 
are quite unworthy of his age.’ 
Cunningham’s story is that the artist, 
while sketching a landscape, noticed a 
charming lady and forthwith put her in his 
picture. Soon afterwards a lady—the same 
lady—came to his studio and, after the 
usual preliminary enquiries, sat for her 
portrait. Before it was finished the artist 
was as much in love with her as, evidently, 
she had been from the outset with him. 
In a month or so they were married, and, 


30 Raeburn 


strange to say, they lived happily ever 
afterwards, although she was a widow, a 
dozen years or so older than he, with three 
children by her first husband, James Leslie, 
who had, or used, the title of Count* as a 
prefix to his name. This was in 1778, when 
Raeburn was 22 years old; six years after 
her marriage to Leslie (16th September, 
1772), and five years after the accepted date 
of his death. That the latter is wrong is 
obvious, as he left three children (not stated 
to be triplets). Also we have Cumberland 
Hill’s definite statement that Leslie bought 
Deanhaugh on 17th September, 1777,+ and 





* Walter Leslie, second son of John Leslie, roth 
Baron of Balquhain (1606-1667) was created a Count of 
the Holy Roman Empire, and Lord of Neustadt in 
Bavaria, by the Emperor of Germany, Ferdinand III., 
in reward of valuable services in war, including the 
murder of Wallenstein and his four chief associates in 
1634. He left no son, but the title continued in the 
family until the death of the 5th count, without issue. 
This I take from Colonel Leslie’s Historical Records of 
the Family of Leslie (1869), with such reservation as 
is necessary when quoting from a rather unintelligible 
record. I gather also that various members of the 
family other than the one then in right of the title were 
in the habit of styling themselves Count. James 
Leslie was probably one of these ; the second and third 
Counts were named James, but they died respectively 
in 1694 and 1738. 

t Leslie’s residence before 1777 is not stated, but 
Mr. W. Forbes Gray has pointed out to me that in the 
Directory for 1774 there is an entry, ‘ James Leslie, 
gentleman, Riekie’s Land, Nicolson Street,’ which may 
refer to him. It is continued in Directories up to 1778. 
No Directory for 1779 is known to exist, and the name 
is not in that for 1780. 


Biographical and Personal 31 


the even more definite evidence of a recorded 
Testament by him dated gth December, 1778. 
As a period of three weeks of viduity seems 
all too short for the working out of Cunning- 
ham’s pretty love story, it is possible that 
the marriage did not take place in that 
year. Raeburn’s first son, Peter, was born 
18th May, 1781 ; the second, Henry, on 24th 
October, 1783. The arch-blunderer, Dr. 
Duncan, said the marriage took place after 
Raeburn’s return from Rome: obviously an 
error, unless the Roman visit occurred at a 
much earlier date than that which is accepted. 
A writer, signing himself S.P., in Notes and 
Queries for 27th November, 1886, de- 
nounced Allan Cunningham’s story, and con- 
tinued : ‘‘ The facts have been notorious in 
Edinburgh since that period. These facts 
are that James Leslie of Deanhaugh ... 
—if the truth must be told—committed 
suicide at Deanhaugh House with a pistol, 
in consequence of jealousy, excited under 
very remarkable circumstances. Immediately 
after the tragedy the widow married the 
artist.” This new light on the subject, 
though never contradicted, has been over- 
looked by all subsequent biographers of 
Raeburn, and, as I have been unable to dis- 
cover the identity of the writer, I should 
have disregarded it, if it did not fit so well 
into other evidence on the subject which I 
have brought together. 
DR 


32 Raeburn 


The faults most readily noticeable in 
Cunningham’s story are, firstly, that there is 
no evidence Raeburn ever painted any 
landscape, although he cleverly employed 
conventionalised landscape backgrounds for 
his portraits ; secondly, that “the very fine 
portrait of her’ which was then painted is 
not forthcoming, and has not, so far as any 
one knows, ever been seen. Its disap- 
pearance, and the absence of landscape 
studies, might have been accounted for if the 
artist’s effects had been dispersed soon after 
his death. But they remained in possession 
of the family, and many years afterwards 
were still with his descendants at Charles- 
field. The only known portrait of the paint- 
er’s wife, painted by him, is that admirable 
full-length which remained in possession of 
the family until 1887, and eventually found 
its way into the collection of the late Sir 
Ernest Cassel. In this she appears to be 
about forty to forty-five years of age, and it 
seems impossible that it was painted at the 
age of 34: the picture during the painting of 
which the affections of the youthful painter 
were captivated by her mature matronly 
charms. 

The damning fact, however, is that Dean- 
haugh, where Ann, “ Countess Leslie,’ lived 
from 1777, if not before, was at Stockbridge, 
close to the dwelling and mill of William 
Raeburn ; so, unless Henry Raeburn never 


Biographical and Personal 33 


visited his birthplace after he grew up, they 
must have known each other perfectly well ; 
at any rate by sight and reputation. 

Ann Leslie was a daughter of Peter Edgar, 
of Bridgelands (which came to him by 
marriage), factor to the Earl of Selkirk, and 
had comfortable means. The marriage 
therefore at once placed Raeburn in the 
happy position of being able to live his life 
and pursue his art without troubling unduly 
about the wherewithal. Fortunately for his 
happiness and the glory of Scottish art, the 
union turned out much more fortunate than 
many others contracted by couples ap- 
parently better adapted for each other by 
age and condition. 

For some seven years (or it may be fewer), 
we must now be content to imagine Raeburn a 
happy and contented man, with an amiable 
and devoted wife, a far better home than he 
had previously known, sufficient money for 
all needs, a growing practice as a painter, a 
consciousness of steady improvement in his 
art, many friends and admirers, and, best 
of all, robust health. No details to illuminate 
that period are available, we do not know if 
he maintained a studio in town, though it is 
probable he did, nor with any certainty what 
portraits he painted, as there were no exhi- 
bitions in Edinburgh, and Raeburn’s records, 
if he kept them, are not to be found. Cum- 
berland Hill mentions with strong approval 


34 Raeburn 


that he never painted on the Lord’s Day, and 
was always to be seen on Sundays in his 
family pew, one of the front seats of the 
first gallery in the West Kirk. The same 
writer shows us too that Raeburn upon 
occasion could and did play his part as a 
member of the little community to which he 
belonged. There was a petition in 1784 to 
‘the Trustees . . . relative to the Bridges 
and Highways in the County of Edinburgh,’ 
praying for the making of a road and the 
erection of a stone bridge at the ford of 
Stockbridge, where there was only a make- 
shift wooden foot-bridge, privately con- 
structed. The principal residents, in whose 
names the petition was made, included 
‘William Reaburn, Henry Reaburn, and 
Walter Ross.’ This last was the eccentric 
lawyer who lived at St. Bernard’s. The 
petition was a reasonable one, for the 
Trustees about twenty-four years earlier had 
established a toll-bar on the road* between 
Edinburgh and Stockbridge, which was a 
constant tax upon the trade of the village, 
and had spent nothing on improvement of 
the road. 

The time arrived at last when Raeburn 
began to feel the need of fresh impetus and 
inspiration, which Edinburgh could not 


* At Kirkbraehead, now the west end of Princes 
Street. 


Biographical and Personal 35 


supply. The wonder is that, being so com- 
fortably circumstanced, he did not sooner set 
out in quest of it. By constant steady effort 
he had improved his art in a manner that 
placed him unquestionably well ahead of all 
Scottish competitors, there was no source in 
Edinburgh from which he could draw fresh 
inspiration for further advance: the obvious 
course was to go south, to study the bril- 
liant galaxy of painters in London, and then, 
perhaps, still further to that wonderful 
painters’ Mecca of the eighteenth century 
imagination, Rome. So Raeburn and his 
wife, having put their house in order, left 
their two infant children, and set out upon 
their travels, probably by sea, from Leith. 
This is what we are told by Cunningham and 
Andrew, but it is hard to believe that a 
matron of 41 years would set out on the long 
and risky journey to Italy, leaving behind for 
two years her three children by her first 
husband, and the two Raeburn infants, the 
younger of whom was less than two years old. 

As the purpose of his travel was to improve 
himself in his art it may be concluded that 
Raeburn went in the spring, in time to have 
a view of the Royal Academy’s Exhibition 
at Somerset House. The only thing definitely 
known as to his London experiences is that 
he saw, and was favourably received by, 
Sir Joshua Reynolds, in whose studio he is 
said to have painted. 


36 Raeburn 


The seventeenth Royal Academy Exhibi- 
tion was not a great affair judged by modern 
standards: 616 exhibits of all sorts, in two 
or three rooms; but to the Scot, who had 
never seen anything of the kind, it must have 
been a revelation. He may have seen work 
by Reynolds in Edinburgh, but even that is 
uncertain, and it must have been intensely 
interesting to see and study the great 
President’s sixteen exhibits, also to measure 
himself by those of other painters of that 
blossoming time in English portrait art. 
The Exhibition included pictures by Beechey 
(9), who though still resident at Norwich was 
becoming well known, Copley (1), Cosway 
(3), Hamilton (4), Hoppner (6), Opie (6), 
Peters (3), Rigaud (7), and Russell (ro). 
Of provincial art, except from places near 
London, there was practically none: a 
single portrait by R. Home of Dublin, a plan, 
section and elevation of a temple by J. 
Henderson of Edinburgh, and two land- 
scapes by S. Howitt of Richmond, Yorks. 

Ramsay had died in the previous year : 
perhaps Raeburn may have been moved by 
this to visit London to see if there was room 
for another Scot. If so, the array of for- 
midable rivals to be faced would have a 
discouraging effect on a man who seems never 
to have realised his own greatness. As he is 
supposed to have spent several months in 
London, he would almost certainly have 


Biographical and Personal 37 


visited the exhibition room which Gains- 
borough opened at Schomberg House in Pall 
Mall after his final rupture with the Royal 
Academy; and perhaps he looked up 
Romney in Cavendish Square. In London 
he would certainly see the work of both 
these men, though they did not send to 
Somerset House. 

Whatever may have been his original 
intention, Raeburn eventually set out for 
Rome, in obedience to the emphatic advice 
of Reynolds to go there and worship Michael 
Angelo in the Sistine Chapel, and study his 
terribile via. This is reported by Cunning- 
ham, who adds that the President took his 
young friend aside and said: ‘“‘ Young man, 
I know nothing of your circumstances ; 
young painters are seldom rich; but if 
money be necessary for your studies abroad, 
say so, and you shall not want it.’ As 
Reynolds was not addicted to profuse 
generosity, this, if true, is evidence that he 
recognised the rare ability of Raeburn. No 
doubt, however, he was relieved in mind when 
the latter shouted into his ear trumpet that 
he already had sufficient funds. With a 
lighter heart he set about giving valuable 
help in the way of letters of introduction to 
noted artists and others known to him in 
Rome, including the aged Pompeo Battoni, 
who was the most excellent and admired 
painter there, 


38 Raeburn 


The journey to and the return from Rome 
were overland, according to W. R. Andrew, 
who summarily tells us that ‘two years of 
diligent study were spent in Italy, to and 
from which country he travelled with all 
possible expedition, without stopping at 
Paris or any other place.’ It seems strange 
that on his return he did not even halt at 
London to pay his respects to Reynolds. To 
this meagre record there is only to be added 
that to his fellow-countryman, Gavin Hamil- 
ton, ‘he was indebted for many attentions,’ 
and that James Byres, of Tonley, discoverer of 
the Barberini Vase, gave him the valuable 
advice never, when possible, to trust to his 
memory when painting, even on _ subor- 
dinate parts of his pictures. Andrew 
comments: ‘ This advice Raeburn followed, 
and whether it was the principal figure or the 
minutest accessory, he had it always before 
him; and to the strict observance of this 
rule he ascribed, in a great measure, his 
continued improvement, and the genuine and 
natural character which his pictures always 
preserved.’ It seems a long way to have 
travelled for a piece of wise counsel which, 
(to judge by a knowledge of his work), he 
needed less than most painters. However, 
there can be no doubt that Raeburn’s stay in 
Italy must have had great value in enlarging 
his mind and extending his knowledge of the 
best art of the past, although envious David 


Biographical and Personal 39 


Martin is said to have expressed the opinion 
that he did not paint so well as he did before 
he went to Italy. No doubt he painted in 
Italy, but we do not know. His admirable 
portrait of James Byres was much later, when 
his sage mentor was 77 years old. 

Having returned home Raeburn at once 
set to work with a will. He rented a studio 
in George Street. The number is not noted 
in the 1788 Directory, but the issue for 1796 
gives it as No. 18, south side. ‘ He came at 
once into full employment as a portrait 
painter, says Andrew, early commissions 
being given by the Harveian Society for 
portraits of William Inglis and Alexander 
Wood. He also painted at this period 
Professor Andrew Duncan, for the Royal 
Public Dispensary, and for the Senate Hall 
of the University, Robertson the historian, 
Dr. Adam Ferguson, and Lord Provost Elder, 
of Forneth. From 1787 to the end of his life 
thirty-six years later Raeburn easily held 
his place as the Scottish master in portraiture : 
a supremacy more complete even than that 
of Reynolds in London, where Gainsborough 
was continually a thorn in his flesh, Ramsay 
engrossed much of the Court patronage, 
Romney held the favour of many, and, in 
his later years, Hoppner, Lawrence, Beechey, 
Cosway, West, Opie, Peters, and others were 
competitors of more than common ability. 
Such competitors as Raeburn had were men 


40 Raeburn 


of much less importance, and they were the 
more easily to be disregarded because of 
Raeburn’s comfortable financial position, 
which enabled him to take his place socially 
as a man of distinction, in a community 
possessing at that time a very unusual 
number of remarkable persons. His 
friendships and intimacies were most likely 
with the legal, scientific, and literary notables 
of Edinburgh, rather than with other artists. 
Farington, writing in 1801, noted that 
‘Raeburn and Nasmith do not associate 
much with the other artists and hold them- 
selves very high. Raeburn scarcely indeed 
with any of the profession.’ 

W. R. Andrew says: ‘about this time’ 
(t.e. in his thirty-second year) ‘ he removed 
with his family from Deanhaugh to the 
neighbouring estate of St. Bernard’s, which 
he had succeeded to on the death of his 
elder brother William.’ Cunningham placed 
him there a year earlier, but without killing 
the brother, who, as a matter of fact, had 
nothing to do with St. Bernard’s, and lived 
until 1810. St. Bernard’s was occupied by 
the eccentric Walter Ross, W.S., builder of 
Ross’s Folly, until his death on 11th March, 
1789. ‘ At his particular desire he was kept 
full eight days, and interred in his garden in 
the underpart of the tower which he had 
built, with the top of the coffin kept open.’ 
It was not until after the subsequent death 


Biographical and Personal AI 


of the widow that Raeburn rented the house, 
and removed to it; eventually, in or about 
1809, he bought it. The slumbers of Mr. 
Ross were not disturbed (although his 
‘Folly’ had so far fallen from favour that 
latterly the ground floor of it was used as 
a stable), until, about 1818, he was disinterred 
and removed to St. Cuthbert’s Churchyard. 
According to Cumberland Hill, who remem- 
bered the tower and gave this account of it, 
it was pulled down in 1825, and in the previous 
year some of the curious carved stones that 
had been built into it were sent to Abbots- 
ford as a present to Sir Walter Scott. As 
the tower stood on ground now occupied by 
the north end of Ann Street, which was one 
of Raeburn’s building achievements (and 
named after his wife), one would think Hill 
had erred as to this date, and that it was 
demolished by Raeburn in his lifetime, 
probably in 1818, after the removal of Ross’s 
remains, and that the sculptured stones (from 
the old Cross of Edinburgh), were sent by him 
to his friend Scott. Dare a writer a full 
century later venture to contradict the 
statement of a man who says he saw the 
tower demolished, even if, as he admits in 
his preface (1887), he was then ‘aged’? 
Raeburn’s reason for removing to St. 
Bernard’s is probably to be found in the fact 
that thereafter his step-daughter, Mrs. Ann 
Leslie or Inglis, with her two sons, continued 


42 Raeburn 


to occupy Deanhaugh House until she died. 
James Leslie had bought the house in 1777, 
and it probably became the property of one of 
his surviving children; the mother only 
occupying it during that child’s minority. 
The other daughter, Jacobina, married 
Daniel Vere, of Stonebyres, Sheriff-Substitute 
of Lanarkshire. Her portrait by Raeburn 
was in 1904 in the collection of Mr. W. A. 
Coats. I quote a description of it from some 
personal notes made during the great 1876 
Raeburn Exhibition at Edinburgh, to which > 
it was lent by Mr. James T. Gibson Craig. 
‘From the portrait of Raeburn’s step- 
daughter, Mrs. Vere of Stonebyres, an 
extremely charming work, we have a good 
idea of what his wife must have been like in 
her youth ; for there is a very strong likeness 
between mother and daughter. The same 
sweet, kind and affectionate expression 
pervades both; and the fair, plump, glad 
face of the latter is not without some share 
of the peculiar charm with which the mother 
is invested. The fine and full outlines of her 
figure are well displayed by the easy, natural 
pose and admirable drawing of the picture. 
The white dress is well disposed and executed, 
and well varied by an olive-coloured mantle.’ 

Dr. John Brown mentions another picture 
of Jacobina ‘lying asleep, her head on a 
pillow—a fine study.’ I do not know of any 
portrait by Raeburn of Mrs. Ann Inglis. I 


Biographical and Personal 43 


am also without much information about her 
husband, James Philip Inglis, beyond the 
fact that, about 1806-8, he seems to have 
been a partner with Raeburn’s son, Henry, 
in a short-lived business which ended 
disastrously, and that he died at Calcutta on 
28th April, 1817, survived by two sons, 
Charles Leslie Inglis and Henry Raeburn 
Inglis. The Boy and Rabbit, the painter’s 
Royal Academy diploma picture, was a 
portrait of the latter, a deaf-mute, who is 
said to have been the subject of at least one 
other picture. These two children, accord- 
ing to Hill, were with their mother at 
Deanhaugh when Raeburn removed to St. 
Bernard’s, but it is worthy of notice that 
their father is not mentioned. There is 
no reason to suppose that the separation 
from the Inglis family arose from any serious 
disagreement, for all evidence is to the 
contrary. Without any such cause it may 
have been found desirable to put an end to 
the combination under one roof of two 
families: Raeburn, his wife, and two 
adolescent sons ; his step-daughter, her two 
boys, and possibly her husband. 

It was not until 1792 that Raeburn sent 
pictures to the Royal Academy in London : 
a portrait of a gentleman (No. 6), and a 
portrait of a lady (No. 351, hung in the 
Ante-room). Algernon Graves noted that 
the former was of John Home, or Horne ; 


44 Raeburn 


from a MS. note in my copy of the catalogue 
the former was the correct name; probably 
the small half-length of the once famous 
author of Douglas which is now in the 
National Portrait Gallery. The parson-poet, 
long resident in Edinburgh and nearly 
seventy years old, was a good selection, as 
Douglas was still, thirty-five years after 
its first English performance in London, at 
Covent Garden Theatre, a favourite piece, 
in which Mrs. Siddons excelled as Lady 
Randolph. The death, early in the year, of 
Sir Joshua Reynolds, may have influenced 
the man of all others best fitted to fill his 
place, to try his fortune in London. No 
other Scottish painter was represented in 
the Exhibition, which was still practically 
confined to artists resident in London. 
Apparently the result of his venture did not 
greatly please Raeburn, for he did not send 
again till six years later, when he was repre- 
sented by his Portrait of Sir Wiliam Farquhar 
(No. 28), probably sent because it was in 
London to be engraved. However, he had 
a Portrait of a Gentleman (578) hung in the 
Antique Academy in the following year ; 
after which there was a lapse until in 1802 he 
showed his Portrait of Dr. Rutherford, 
‘Professor of Botany in the University of 
Edinburgh, for Dr. Thornton’s Botanical 
work’ (No. 269, in the Ante-room). The 
presumption that this was in London for the 


Glasgow Corporation Art Galleries 
MR Oo MRS; ROBERT CAMPBELL OF KAILZIE 


SIR HENRY RAEBURN 


(face p, 44) 








Biographical and Personal 45 


use of an engraver is strengthened by the 
fact that the painter is described, without 
initial, as ‘Raeburn, 1 Hind Street, Man- 
chester Square.’ Dr. Daniel Rutherford, 
who was an uncle of Sir Walter Scott, was at 
this time 54 years of age. Raeburn after this 
allowed eight years to pass without again 
sending to London. 

To the labours of the Scottish Record 
Society we are indebted for the fact that on 
the east wall of St. Cuthbert’s Church there 
is or was a large monument inscribed ‘ Henry 
Raeburn, St. Bernard’s, 1792.” I am unable 
to conjecture why Raeburn acquired this 
place of burial in his Parish Churchyard, as 
we know of no death in the family about 
this time. It supplies evidence that he was 
in 1792 established at St. Bernard’s. 


CHAPTER II. 
ASSOCIATION WITH ARTISTS. 


N 1793 the veil which hides the life 
| of Raeburn from us is lifted by 
the distinguished miniaturist Andrew 
Robertson (1777--1845). When about six- 
teen years of age he went from Aberdeen to 
Edinburgh to study landscape and scene 
painting under Alexander Nasmyth. ‘ Being 
very desirous of seeing Raeburn’s pictures, I 
bravely knocked at his door, armed with a 
shilling for his servant, requesting to see 
the pictures. I had never seen such in pro- 
gress before. My astonishment and delight 
with the magical creations around me may 
be more easily conceived than described ! ’ 
While thus Robertson was getting full 
value (even for an Aberdonian) for his 
shilling, some ladies entered the gallery and 
presently Raeburn himself, palette and 
brushes in hand, came in. The brushes, he 
tells us, were each a yard long, ‘for he 
painted at arm’s length.’ His palette, 
preserved at the Royal Scottish Academy, 
is not large. ‘I could never till then,’ 
writes Robertson, ‘form any idea of what 
46 


Association with Artists 47 


Apelles was like; but there he _ stood, 
although in a modern dress, his aspect 
noble and dignified but kind; in figure a 
model to draw from.’ 

The nervous lad turned his back to the 
ladies and Raeburn, and went on looking at 
the pictures. After a time they all went 
out and he breathed freely again until, to 
his great consternation, Raeburn returned 
and came up to him. He expected to be 
asked what business he had there, but the 
painter kindly said: ‘“‘ You seem fond of 
pictures? ’’ ‘Oh yes, very,” he stammered. 
“Do you paint?” “I tried to do so, and 
wish I could become a painter.’’ ‘‘ Have 
you anything toshow me?” “ No, nothing: 
I have a few miniatures in my pocket, but 
I dare not show them to you.” “ Why 
not?” “I have had no opportunity of 
seeing good pictures, and had nothing to 
copy from but Nature.” ‘“ You rouse my 
curiosity. You have had the very best 
instructor, in Nature, to guide you. I 
shall expect to see something very good.” 
Robertson at last produced his miniatures. 
“Aye, I thought so; that'll do!” said 
Raeburn. “‘ Go on, you are all right.” 

After they had talked a little more the 
youth plucked up courage to say that he 
would much like to copy some of Raeburn’s 
work. ‘You had better stick to the 
fountain-head, Nature,’’ said Raeburn ; then, 

ER 


48 Raeburn 


on Robertson’s face showing the acuteness 
of his disappointment, he continued: “ but 
if you think it would do you any good, you 
are welcome. You may copy this, or that, 
but the others are not mine, they belong to 
the parties, and I cannot allow them to be 
copied without their consent.” Then with 
due Scottish caution Raeburn remembered 
that he was talking to an utter stranger of 
whose honesty he knew nothing. Robertson, 
on being reminded of this, offered to get 
‘ recommendations.’ Raeburn, however, 
probably because he was interested, said he 
had a small room not much used—Robertson 
might come and paint there: “My man 
shall clear it out, and you shall begin 
to-morrow.” 

The first picture copied was the half- 
length of John Tait, W.S., of Harvieston and 
Cumloden. Mr. Greig traced the miniature 
by Robertson which resulted, and it is 
illustrated in his Connoisseur monograph, 
alongside the Raeburn picture of Tait with 
his grandchild. The actual picture copied 
may not have been this one, as an earlier 
likeness was lent to the Raeburn Exhibition 
of 1876 by Mr. Tait, the owner of both. 
The picture with the child was probably a 
replica painted some years later, as the child 
was born in 1796; conjecturally in 1798, 
as the boy appears to have been about two 
years old. The grandfather died in 1800. 


Association with Artists 49 


Robertson, with the fine audacity of youth 
and despite his reverence for Raeburn, 
disapproved of ‘a blazing warm sky on one 
side close to the head,’ so considerably 
lowered its tone in his copy. On seeing this 
Raeburn stared, frowned, and then smiled. 
“TI see you have improved upon my com- 
position,” said he; ‘ Yes,’’ replied Robert- 
son, “‘I think it an improvement; don’t 
you think it is?” David Martin would 
probably have thrown Raeburn into the 
street if he had been so presumptuous. 
Raeburn only laughed heartily and bid the 
boy come to dinner with him and his family 
on the morrow. The audacious Andrew 
evidently captured the favour of Mrs. 
Raeburn, for he continues: ‘I dined 
repeatedly with him during my short stay 
in Edinburgh, but he never forgot the joke 
of my altering the composition. Some years 
after, I saw the picture again and found 
that he had adopted my alterations. This 
enabled me to turn the joke against him, 
but he said he “‘ did so merely to oblige me.”’’ 

There was probably some quality of 
fascination about the raw young student, or 
else Raeburn, recognising his ability and 
remembering his own early struggles, deter- 
mined to help him in a_whole-hearted 
manner. He got his patrons to allow his 
portraits of them to be copied, and ‘ when- 
ever he could take such a liberty with a 


50 Raeburn 


sitter’ young Robertson was free to be in 
the painting room and watch him at work. 

‘I thus write the portrait of Sir Henry 
Raeburn,’ concludes Robertson; ‘and all 
who had the pleasure to know him will 
acknowledge that it is more like than any 
I ever painted. Thus commenced my friend- 
ship with one of the noblest and most 
amiable of men.’ Let us be grateful to 
Andrew Robertson for such a delightful 
and lifelike portrait of Raeburn in his prime 
at the age of 37: the first clear picture we 
have of him. 

In or about the following year, 1794, 
Robertson studied under Raeburn during 
another visit to Edinburgh, and seven years 
later, writing to his father from London, he 
mentioned that before he sailed from Edin- 
burgh ‘he had been well received by Mr. 
Raeburn and Mr. Nasmyth.’ To his friend 
and staunch patron, John Ewen of Aberdeen, 
he wrote about the same time: ‘ Messrs. 
Raeburn and Nasmyth were happy to see 
me, and you may believe the pleasure was 
reciprocal. I was flattered in the extreme 
by their kindness.’ Ewen, replying, said 
“Mr. RAEBURN. I may be singular in my 
Opinion, it is merely the private opinion of a 
very private man, but, after Sir Joshua, I 
have been taught to set him down as our 
first painter in portrait. I know not if even 
a visit to London would dispose me to yield 


Association with Artists 51 


that opinion.” Mr. Ewen, could he return 
to life to-day, would find that the opinion he 
held a century and a quarter ago is pretty 
generally accepted. 

There are references to other pleasant 
visits to Raeburn in 1802 and 1806, and in 
the latter year Robertson writes to Ewen: 
“He is an able artist, and by far the most 
respectable character I know in_ the 
profession. I am proud of his acquaintance.’ 
To about the same date as Robertson’s first 
interview we may assign the interesting 
description, which Allan Cunningham had 
from an unnamed sitter, of Raeburn’s 
studio methods : 


He spoke a few words to me in his usual brief 
and kindly way—evidently to put me into an 
agreeable mood ; and then having placed me in a 
chair on a platform at the end of his painting-room, 
in the posture required, set up his easel beside me 
with the canvas ready to receive the colour. When 
he saw all was right, he took his palette and his 
brush, retreated back step by step, with his face 
towards me, till he was nigh the other end of the 
room; he stood and studied for a minute more, 
then came up to the canvas, and, without looking 
at me, wrought upon it with colour for some time. 
Having done this, he retreated in the same manner, 
studied my looks at that distance for about another 
minute, then came hastily up to the canvas and 
painted a few minutes more. I had sat to other 
artists ; their way was quite different—they made 
an outline carefully in chalk, measured it with 
compasses, placed the canvas close to me, and 
looking at me almost without ceasing in the face 


52 Raeburn 


proceeded to fill up the outline with colour. They 
succeeded best in the minute detail—Raeburn best 
in the general result of the expression; they 
obtained by means of a multitude of little touches 
what he found by broader masses; they gave 
more of the man—he gave most of the mind. I may 
add that I found him well-informed, with no 
professional pedantry about him; indeed, no one 
could have imagined him a painter till he took up 
the brush and palette; he conversed with me 
upon mechanics and ship-building, and, if I can 
depend upon my own imperfect judgment, he had 
studied ship-architecture with great success. On 
one of the days of my sittings he had to dine with 
me at the house of a mutual friend ; our hour was 
six, and you know how punctual to time we of the 
North are; he painted at my portrait till within 
a quarter of an hour of the time, threw down his 
palette and brushes, went into a little closet, and 
in five minutes sallied out to dinner in a trim worthy 
of the first company. I can remember no more that 
is noteworthy. I sat six times, and two hours 
together. 


Allan Cunningham also gives a descrip- 
tion of Raeburn’s general way of life which, 
although it could not be from his own 
knowledge, may be taken as fairly accurate. 
W. KR. Andrew, having nothing better to 
offer, lifted it entire into his biography, 
merely altering the studio address, and 
thereby suggesting a later date than that 
of Cunningham’s description : 


The motions of the artist were as regular as 
those of a clock. He rose at seven during summer, 
took breakfast about eight with his wife and 


Association with Artists 53 


children, walked in to George Street, and was 
ready for a sitter by nine; and of sitters he gener- 
ally had, for many years, not fewer than three or 
four a day. To these he gave an hour and a half 
each. He seldom kept a sitter more than two 
hours ; unless the person happened—and that was 
often the case—to be gifted with more than common 
talents. He felt himself happy, and never failed 
to detain the party till the arrival of a new sitter 
intimated that he must be gone. For a head size 
he generally required four or five sittings; and he 
preferred painting the head and hands to any other 
part of the body ; assigning as a reason, that they 
required least consideration. A fold of drapery, 
or the natural ease which the casting of a mantle 
over the shoulders demanded, occasioned him more 
perplexing study than a head full of thought and 
imagination. Such was the intuition with which 
he penetrated at once to the mind, that the first 
sitting rarely came to a close without his having 
seized strongly on the character and disposition 
of the individual. He never drew in his heads, 
or indeed any part of the body, with chalk—a 
system pursued successfully by Lawrence; but 
began with the brush at once. The forehead, chin, 
nose, and mouth were his first touches. He always 
painted standing, and never used a stick for resting 
his hand on; for such was his accurateness of eye, 
and steadiness of nerve, that he could introduce 
the most delicate touches, or the utmost mechanical 
regularity of line, without aid, or other contrivance 
than fair, off-hand dexterity. He remained in his 
painting-room till a little after five o’clock, when 
he walked home, and dined at six. 


To these sketches of Raeburn at work may 
be added a briefer one by a stronger hand, 
which is quoted by Andrew: Sir Walter 
Scott said, ‘ His manly stride backwards, as 


54 Raeburn 


he went to contemplate his work at a proper 
distance, and, when resolved on the necessary 
point to be touched, his step forward, were 
magnificent. I see him in my mind’s eye, 
with his hand under his chin, contemplating 
his picture, which position always brought 
me in mind of a figure of Jupiter which I 
have somewhere seen.’ There must have 
been some peculiar distinction about the 
form, movement, and general aspect of 
Raeburn so impressive that Robertson in 
1793 saw in him a reincarnation of Apelles, 
and Scott, thirty years later, likened him 
to the ruler of Olympus. Raeburn himself 
has preserved for us some suggestion of 
his looks, in the wonderful self-portrait 
which now hangs in the Scottish National 
Gallery. 

Active and constant as he was in the 
pursuit of his profession, Raeburn did not 
by any means neglect to live his life as a man 
in the vigorous manner that his physique 
and his temperament made natural to him. 
His daily labours from nine to half-past five 
in his studio must have occasionally have 
been intermitted, for he had many hobbies 
and pursuits. He was a keen golfer, he was 
an equally hearty follower of the once 
popular relaxation of archery, he was an 
ardent angler, and one of the enthusiasts 
who formed a society to restore the Ludi 
A pollinares at Edinburgh, he‘ had considerable 


Association with Artists 55 


skill in gardening, he was a learned and 
enthusiastic florist, and to the mysteries of 
hot-houses, flues, etc., he dedicated many 
experiments.’ He had a passion for maritime 
construction, (which may have been provoked 
in him by Sir John Clerk) and, ‘he made 
many ship-models with his own hands, neat, 
clean-built, ingenious things, all about three 
feet long in the keel ; and it was his pleasure 
to try their merits frequently in Wariston 
Pond.’ Once, not long before his death, 
he over-balanced himself while so employed, 
fell into deep water, and was with difficulty 
rescued by his servant. He also laboured 
hard at attempts to discover perpetual 
motion. Cunningham tells us that he made 
long fishing excursions, sometimes lasting 
several weeks, and he took part in other 
pleasant outings with parties of friends with 
the ostensible purpose of exploring antiquities 
in the surrounding country. 

To all these distractions from the chief 
business of his life Raeburn apparently 
allowed himself to add a share in the 
evening recreations of the city: dinners, 
suppers, and the like. This was, of course, 
all in the interests of business, and it doubt- 
less led up to many desirable commissions, 
but Raeburn was, in virtue of his vigour, 
his fine presence and manners, and his 
genial happy temperament, qualified not 
only to give pleasure to his fellow men, but 


56 Raeburn 


also to take keen pleasure in intercourse 
with them. He possessed that invaluable 
gift for a portrait painter, skill in talking, and 
the art of telling stories inimitably. Scott, 
an unquestionably good judge, said: ‘ His 
conversation was rich, and he told his story 
well.” A ‘nicht wi’ Raeburn’ must have 
been an event to be remembered. Even so 
late as 1820, when he was in his sixty-fifth 
year, he was one of a party of thirty at 
least who dined with Andrew Geddes in 
honour of B. R. Haydon, visiting Edinburgh 
to exhibit his pictures. ‘ Thompson,’ wrote 
Haydon, ‘sang some of the songs of Burns 
with great relish and taste, and at the chorus 
of one’ (probably Auld Lang Syne) ‘to 
my utter astonishment, the whole company 
took hands, jumped up, and danced to the 
tune all round till they came to their seats 
again, leaving me sitting in wonder. Raeburn 
was a glorious fellow, and more boisterous 
than any.’ 

During Raeburn’s life the expansion of 
Edinburgh into ‘ the New Town’ was a very 
fever in men’s veins, and it is not surprising 
that he caught the infection of the building 
craze. He determined to build himself a 
studio after his own heart, and having 
plenty of money he feued a plot of ground in 
York Place, a continuation of Queen Street. 
So far as can be made out from a bird’s-eye 
view of the New Town, made by R. Barker 


Association with Artists 57 


in 1792, which hangs in the Edinburgh 
University, there were at that time no 
buildings in either street (I believe some 
houses in Queen Street had been built) ; 
but a few years changed all that. Raeburn 
set to work with a will and, whether with the 
aid of an architect or not is not stated, 
though one conjectures that neighbour 
Nasmyth took a hand in the enterprise, 
evolved a highly satisfactory building to 
serve him as painting-room and exhibition 
gallery. Cunningham describes it as consist- 
ing of a sunk storey for domestic accommoda- 
tion, a ground floor containing the painting 
rooms, with a storey above, formed into one 
fine gallery, fifty feet long, thirty-five feet 
wide, and forty feet high, lighted from the 
roof. On the walls of this stately apartment 
he hung his works when finished, and the 
doors were opened to all who had taste or 
curiosity. 

The date of removal to this new studio 
is given by Cunningham as 1795, and 
W. R. Andrew says the same. They were 
perhaps mistaken: the inscription placed 
on the house a few years ago by the Edin- 
burgh Pen & Pencil Club is as follows :—‘ In 
this house built by him Sir Henry Raeburn 
painted from 1798 to 1809.’ One would 
suppose that authorities more trustworthy 
than those mentioned were consulted before 
this was set up, but the date 1809 is almost 


58 Raeburn 


certainly wrong; 1798 is probably right, 
because of the fact that I find in the Edin- 
burgh Directory for 1797-1798 ‘ Raeburn, 
Henry, Portrait Painter, No. 18 George 
Street, south side.’ I have not been able 
to find Directories for the two following 
years, but in that for 1800--1801 the address 
is changed to No. 16 York Place. There was 
no alteration until 1811, (except that for 
three years Raeburn was described as a 
landscape painter) when the number was 
changed to 34. It so remained until in the 
year of the painter’s death, 32, the correct 
number when the street was renumbered, 
was substituted. 

It will be necessary to revert to these 
changes of number; in the meantime it is 
sufficient to say there seems no doubt that 
the house now numbered 32 is the one that 
Raeburn built, and it is probable that it 
was not completed and occupied until 1798. 

While thus, at the age of 42, on the top 
of the tide of good fortune, Raeburn had his 
first experience, so far as we know, of the 
tragic side of life. His elder son, Peter, died 
of consumption on 6th February, 1798, at 
the age of 16 years and 9 months, and was 
buried at St. Cuthbert’s, where a tombstone 
recorded in eloquent Latin his merit and the 
grief of his parents, until for some reason 
it was obliterated in 1836. Andrew states 
that the lad ‘ evinced great artistic genius ; 


Association with Artists 59 


he painted a most impressive portrait of 
himself, which he presented as a last gift 
to his mother.’ I have not been able to 
learn anything about this picture, though it 
might have been expected that it would, 
along with the fateful early portrait of the 
boy’s mother, have been specially cherished 
as a heirloom. A small portrait of Peter by 
his father was in rg1z (according to the 
Connotsseur list) in the collection of Mr. V. G. 
Fischer of Washington. 

Having tasted the alluring joys of building, 
Raeburn naturally desired to dabble further 
in the fascinating pursuit. He owned a 
good deal of land in Stockbridge, and he 
proceeded to lay some of it out for building 
purposes. Without a practically impossible 
examination of the title-deeds of half the 
houses there one could not define exactly 
how far he was responsible for its develop- 
ment into a residential quarter. We know 
that he planned Ann Street, which is named 
after his wife, while Raeburn Place and 
Leslie Place suggest his influence. St. 
Bernard’s Crescent was probably built after 
his time, although the general classical 
design of it is said to have been suggested 
to him by Wilkie; it was probably com- 
menced soon after his death, and his son, 
Henry, would be responsible for the demoli- 
tion of St. Bernard’s and the building of the 
Crescent that succeeded it. According to 


60 Raeburn 


the Directories he lived there until 1826, 
but in 1827 his address was No. 19 St. 
Bernard’s Crescent. That he dabbled in 
building in his father’s lifetime is shown by 
an old policy of the Caledonian Insurance 
Company in his favour in I81I, on two 
houses in course of construction in Raeburn 
Place. Neither of these was for his own 
use, as he was then a bachelor, and after 
he married in the following year he and his 
wife and their children lived at St. Bernard’s. 

On September the 23rd, 1801, Joseph 
Farington, visiting Edinburgh betook himself 
to York Place, and called first on ‘ Mr. 
Nasmith,’ of whose art he did not think 
highly. He then crossed the street to 
“Mr. Raeburn, the portrait painter most 
esteemed here.’ Golf, archery, building, a 
law suit, or some other distraction had 
claimed Raeburn, and Farington was shown 
round by a servant who when asked what 
other artists there were in Edinburgh, told 
him ‘there was Mr. Nasmith, who was a 
great landscape painter, the best in Scotland, 
and superior to any in England.’ Farington 
noted approval of Raeburn’s premises, and 
“found pictures of a much superior kind 
to those I saw at Mr. Nasmith’s. Some of 
Mr. Raeburn’s portraits, he continued, 
“have an uncommonly true appearance of 
nature and are painted with much firmness, 
but there is a great inequalityin his works. 


— 


Association with Artists 61 


That which strikes the eye is a kind of 
Camera Obscura effect, and from those 
pictures which seem to be his best, I should 
conclude he has looked very much at nature, 
reflected in a Camera... .’ 

This odd criticism is interesting as coming 
from a brother artist, and also as tending 
to show that Raeburn’s pictures of inferior 
quality are not necessarily assignable to the 
later period when his financial difficulties 
tended to make him produce hurried and 
uninspired work. Farington noted that 
Raeburn’s prices were 100 guineas for a 
whole length, 50 for a half-length, 30 for a 
kit-cat, and 25 for a three-quarter portrait. 
It does not appear that he saw Raeburn, 
which is a pity, as his pen portrait would 
have been valuable. He noted that ‘he 
has a house, called Stockbridge, situated 
near the Water of Leith, where he resides 
much.’ 

The next definite fact in regard to Raeburn 
is that he was, as already mentioned, an 
original member of the Board of Directors 
of the Caledonian Insurance Company, 
founded in 1805. Interesting particulars as 
to this are given in the History of a Hundred 
Years issued by the Company in 1905. 
“After the first year he found that a 
Director’s duties demanded more time than 
he was willing to spare from his art; and 
he therefore left the Board.’ Enduring 


62 Raeburn 


memorials of his connection with the Com- 
pany are his portraits, which hang in the 
Company’s Board Room, of William Braid- 
wood and William H. Dickie, its first 
manager and second secretary. Raeburn 
also supplied the Company with an admirable 
design for the heading of its policy forms, 
which ‘ continued in use until 1838, when a 
much feebler one took its place.’ This 
unique example of Raeburn’s skill, outside 
the province of portraiture, represents a 
lady with a plumed helmet, spear, and 
shield, (presumably Caledonia) seated on a 
bank where thistles grow plentifully, with a 
glimpse in the distance of the Forth, Edin- 
burgh, and Arthur’s Seat. On the shield 
is figured Saint Andrew, holding his 
Cross. 

In 1805, if not before, Raeburn’s son Henry 
set up in business in Leith: ‘ Henry 
Raeburn, Merchant, Broad Wynd,’ is the 
entry in the 1805 Directory. In the following 
year it became ‘Henry Raeburn & Co., 
Merchants, Shore,’ and in 1807 the address 
was ‘Citadel.’ There is no subsequent 
entry of the name of this firm, which was not 
successful, and became bankrupt. As to the 
nature of its business there is no record: in 
Scotland ‘merchant’ was commonly used 
in the same sense as the French marchand, 
and every petty shopkeeper was a ‘ mer- 
chant.’ Raeburn & Co., however, were 


Association with Artists 63 


probably something in the wholesale way, in 
connection with shipping. Mr. Caw con- 
jectured that they were marine underwriters, 
because in Raeburn’s own bankruptcy pro- 
ceedings he was described as ‘ Portrait 
painter and underwriter.” The Co. seems 
to have been James Philip Inglis, husband 
of Henry’s half-sister Ann. Raeburn himself 
was deeply involved in the disaster. Mr. 
Caw quotes a letter from Alexander Cunning- 
ham written on the 16th of February, 1808, 
in which he tells a correspondent: ‘I had 
a walk of three hours on Sunday with my 
worthy friend, Raeburn. He had realised 
nearly £17,000, which is all gone. He has 
offered a small composition, which he is in 
hopes will be accepted. He quits this to 
try his fate in London, which I trust in 
God will be successful. While I write this 
I feel the tear start.’ Sir Walter Scott’s 
account of the matter in a letter to Haydon 
on the day when Raeburn died was that he 
‘had become totally embarrassed in his 
affairs, from incautious securities in which 
he was engaged for a near relative, who was 
in the West India trade.’ 

Mr. Greig, after quoting this letter, re- 
marks: ‘ Raeburn may have intended at 
that time to go to London, but though he 
received his discharge in June 1808, the 
affairs of Henry Raeburn & Co. were not 
settled until March 1810, and no doubt the 

FR 


64 Raeburn 


artist delayed his projected change until he 
was at ease in mind and finance. Within 
a year after the failure he was in a position 
to purchase St. Bernard’s, and by the spring 
of 1810 he felt rich enough to risk the cost 
of life as a fashionable portrait painter in 
London.’ In the dim light of what we know 
about this period of Raeburn’s life this 
seems a sound pronouncement. It may 
quite well be the case however that Raeburn 
did visit London in 1808, although there is 
no record of his having been there. 

He was more fortunate than most bank- 
rupts in the fact that his failure did not 
proceed from or injuriously affect his main 
business as a portrait painter: it is to his 
credit as a man and artist that he did not 
allow it to interfere with his studio activities. 
It was in 1808 that he painted the famous 
‘Buccleuch ’ portrait of Walter Scott. This 
was commissioned by Constable, in the height 
of Scott’s new fame as a poet, which had 
succeeded and superseded his early reputa- 
tion as an antiquary, learned in old ballads, 
and was in turn to be out-shone by his great 
and enduring fame as a novelist. The Lay of 
the Last Minstrel appeared in 1805, and 
Marmion followed it in 1808. 

The first public Exhibition in Scotland 
by artists was opened on 2oth June, 1808, 
at Core’s Lyceum in Nicolson Street. There 
were 171 pictures, of which fourteen were 


In the possession of Sir William Raeburn 
ROBERT HAY OF DRUMELZIER 


SIR HENRY RAEBURN 





. 
# 
; 
t 
" 23 
Ny 
i 
i 
t 
‘ 
~ eMac 
* 
it 
° . 





Association with Artists 65 


by George Watson, and one by John Watson 
(Gordon), but none by Raeburn. 

This abstention from the new Society was 
probably due to the confusion in his affairs, 
for the promotion of such an exhibition had 
been one of his objects, and in the following 
years he was a regular and large exhibitor. 
Henry Cockburn judged that ‘in general 
the works were below what would now be 
admitted into any exhibition in Edinburgh. 
The best were those of Nasmyth, Thomson 
and Carse. ... However, this exhibition 
did incalculable good. It drew such artists 
as we had out of their obscurity: it showed 
them their strength and their weakness: 
it excited public attention: it gave them 
importance.’ The gate-money taken was 
not enough to pay the cost of the room, 
but in the following years when the exhibi- 
tion was held in Raeburn’s gallery there 
was a handsome profit. This was in part 
due to the better situation of the gallery, 
for the people with money and _ leisure 
were by that time nearly all removed to 
the ‘New’ Town; but the additional 
attraction of portraits by Raeburn was an 
important contributory cause. G. Watson 
was a rival portrait painter, a pupil of 
Nasmyth and Reynolds, eleven years younger 
than Raeburn, but even at his best inferior 
to him. The one exhibit by his nephew, 
John Watson, then a youth of 20, was The 


66 Raeburn 


Lay of the Last Minstrel. He afterwards 
adopted the name of Watson-Gordon, for 
the sake of distinction from three relatives 
who were painters. He is said to have lived 
at Stockbridge and to have been intimate 
with Raeburn. Cumberland Hill tells us 
that: ‘after taking painting apartments in 
Edinburgh the following was of almost 
daily occurrence. Every morning at nine 
o'clock, or perhaps a little before it, John 
Watson left Ann Street, and walking down 
the beautiful and picturesque footpath that 
skirted the banks of the Water of Leith, he 
passed St. Bernard’s, where, almost invari- 
ably, he was joined by the portly figure of 
Sir Henry Raeburn. Engaged in conversa- 
tion, no doubt beneficial to the younger 
but rising artist, they proceeded to 
Edinburgh. .. .’ 

It is not known that Raeburn’s young 
friend had any teaching from him other than 
in conversation, but he was strongly in- 
fluenced by his art, and carried on the 
Raeburn tradition in portraiture with bril- 
liant success. He had been trained at the 
Trustees’ Academy School, under John 
Graham, who, appointed master of it in 1798, 
became as a teacher a factor of great impor- 
tance in the development of Scottish art. 
Among his pupils were Sir David Wilkie, 
Sir John Watson-Gordon, Sir William Allan, 
and John Burnet. 


Association with Artists 67 


The Reverend John Thomson, who was an 
exhibitor of five pictures in 1808, was 
another close friend of Raeburn, after he 
came to Duddingston in 1805 as minister. 
It is said that Raeburn thought of having a 
seascape background painted by Thomson 
for one of his portraits of an admiral, in 
imitation of Sir Thomas Lawrence’s usage, 
but thought better of it because he was 
afraid, so he said, ‘that Mr. Thomson’s 
background might put my part of the 
picture in the shade.’ 

The 1808 Exhibition was the outcome of 
the formation of a Society of Artists,* and 
after the first year the results of the annual 
displays were so good that in 1813 they led 
to the Society’s disruption. An _ exact 
account of the matter is given in the historical 
narrative by the late Dr. W. D. McKay, 
R.S.A., prefixed to Mr. Frank Rinder’s valu- 
able analysis of the Royal Scottish Academy’s 
Exhibition catalogues. The exhibitions 


* A writer, signing U.F., in the Scots’ Magazine for 
1815, says the Society was projected and formed by a 
class of persons who (with two exceptions at the most) 
were at the very bottom of the profession.’ They 
elected their President (G. Watson) over a bowl of 
punch, and he immediately named as Secretary a 
writer (John Russell), with a salary of £50. Afterwards 
the better men camein, but ‘the public had the mortifi— 
cation of seeing Raeburn a simple member of the Society, 
with one vote, and no influence, under the presidency of 
aman of some merit in his own way, but whose works 
were then little heard of and as little admired.’ 


68 Raeburn 


from 1809 to 1813 were in Raeburn’s York 
Place Gallery, and he was an important 
contributor: showing 57 pictures in five 
years. George Watson, the President, showed 
67, but not all portraits as was the case with 
Raeburn. The usage at that time of omit- 
ting from the catalogue the names of persons 
limned, robs us of what would have been 
a valuable contribution to the chronology of 
Raeburn’s work ; but as regards 1809 I am 
able to supply from other sources the names 
of several of those represented in his eleven 
exhibits: No. 129 was General Maxwell, 
which the editor of the Scots Magazine con- 
sidered ‘an admirable picture, uncommonly 
well drawn, finely coloured, and a striking 
likeness. The foreshortening of the right 
arm is not inferior to Rubens. On the 
whole, this picture reminds us much of Sir 
Joshua’s celebrated portrait of Lord Heath- 
field, to which it would form a not unsuitable 
companion.’ No. 144, Portrait of a Gentle- 
man on Horseback, represents Mr. Harley 
Drummond. This is highly praised. It 
reminded the writer of Vandyck’s Charles I 
and the Marquis of Hamilton at Donibristle. 
He remarked on the great skill shown in the 
management of the background, but thought 
the right leg perhaps too long, and the curva- 
ture of the horse’s neck overstrained. No. 
156 was Dr. Adam. No. 183, Walter Scott. 
This is praised at some length. ‘We 


Association with Artists 69 


consider the present as a striking instance of 
Mr. Raeburn’s scientific knowledge of the 
harmony of colouring; the greenish tone 
which pervades the whole is particularly 
pleasing.” No. 192 was Mrs. Cochran. 

In 1811 one of the full-length portraits 
was the Adam Rolland of Gask, and in the 
two following years the catalogues identify 
a full-length of the Earl of Rosebery, the 
Lord Bishop of Meath, (now in the Dresden 
Gallery), Lady Innes Ker, and Sir James 
Innes Ker in 1812 ; Lord Seaforth, and Lord 
Elcho and Mr. Charters (sic) on one canvas, 
in 1813. A Sherlock Holmes intelligence 
would be required to evolve a complete list 
of the remaining four noblemen, (two full- 
length), twenty gentlemen (one full-length), 
one young gentleman, one gentleman and 
lady, fifteen ladies (one full-length), three 
young ladies, two boys on one canvas, and 
three children on another. 

Mr. Caw says that as a consequence of his 
bankruptcy Raeburn had to sell his York 
Place premises, of which he was afterwards 
only tenant. That he continued to occupy 
it to the end of his life is generally accepted 
by biographers, but the inscription carved 
on the front of the house, already quoted, 
suggests a doubt on the subject. The use 
of Raeburn’s picture gallery for exhibitions 
from 1809 might mean that he no longer 
had control of it, and it would be reasonable 


70 Raeburn 


to assume that the inscription on the house 
was framed by some one who, after careful 
enquiry, had full knowledge of the facts ; 
but I think he was mistaken. By 1809 
Raeburn had apparently recovered pretty 
well from his financial collapse, although his 
son was not then discharged, as in that year 
he bought St. Bernard’s from the trustees 
of the widow of Walter Ross. 


CHAPTER III. 
SOME CONTEMPORARY ESTIMATES 


O far as we know, Raeburn took no steps 
to act upon his despairing resolution 
in 1808 to remove to London, until 

two years later. Scottish caution probably 
made him delay taking active measures until 
he had so far amended his fortunes as to be 
able to undertake such a great adventure 
for a man of mature years and settled habits, 
with a sufficient financial backing. The 
death of Hoppner in January 1810 may have 
quickened a dormant design into action, for 
it certainly made an opening for a new 
portrait painter of the first rank. Soon 
after, on 2nd March, Wilkie noted in his 
‘ Journal’ that Raeburn intended to come 
to London and take Hoppner’s house. His 
portrait of Scott went before him, and duly 
appeared at the Royal Academy’s Exhibition 
—his first appearance there since 1802. 
Here again the picture was in London to be 
engraved, as was the case with some if not 
all of his previous contributions to Somerset 
House. Raeburn evidently went up at the 
time of the Exhibition, for it was on the 12th 


71 


72 Raeburn 


of May that he called upon Wilkie and said 
“he had come to London to look out for a 
house, and to see if there was any prospect 
of establishing himself.” Wilkie took him 
to see Sir William Beechey, and next day 
‘called with him on several artists who 
happened to be from home or engaged.’ 
Fight days later he took Raeburn to Stoth- 
ard, and on 4th June ‘went with Raeburn 
to the Crown & Anchor to meet the gentle- 
men of the Royal Academy. I introduced 
him to Flaxman ; after dinner he was asked 
by Beechey to sit near the President, where 
his health was proposed by Flaxman ; great 
attention was paid to him.’ 

After all, nothing resulted. Raeburn went 
home again and settled down cheerfully to 
work in Edinburgh for the rest of his life. 
Perhaps his survey of London failed to please 
him, perhaps the artists he met gave him an 
unfavourable impression as to the reception 
awaiting a competitor, perhaps he could not 
find a suitable house: it may be that he 
realised the great difference between the 
two capitals, and the obstacles that would, 
in the metropolis, make success difficult and 
life perhaps unpleasant for a Scot fifty-four 
years old, with a wife aged sixty-six, who 
talked the broadest of broad Scots. And so 
English art missed having infused into it as 
a vitalising corrective to the pretty-pretti- 
ness of the decadent Lawrence school, the 


Some Contemporary Estimates 73 


influence and example of a supremely great 
and virile individuality. Lawrence is said, 
on no definite evidence, to have influenced 
Raeburn to abandon his purpose ; it seems 
quite likely that he may have done so, for 
it was obviously to his interest that a greater 
painter than he should not come to dispute 
the supremacy he enjoyed. That he was 
capable of doing so is not hard to believe, 
by any one familiar with his career and his 
philandering selfishness. In B. R. Haydon’s 
copy of The Life and Correspondence of 
Lawrence, by D. E. Williams (in the British 
Museum), among the caustic notes is one on 
the passage ‘I who have never in act or 
even speech been illiberal towards a brother 
artist.’ Haydon commented: ‘Oh, Law- 
rence, Lawrence. Fuseli told me that Shee 
had a picture hung in a centre that Lawrence 
wanted. He called on Fuseli, who was a 
hanger—staid with him till 2 in the morning 
—persuading him to take down Shee’s 
picture and hang up hisown. “ Good God,” 
said I to Fuseli, “what did youdo?” ‘“ By 
God,”’ said Fuseli, ‘ I was villain enough to 
do it!’”—and yet Lawrence says he was 
never in act illiberal to a Brother.’ 

It was about the year 1810 (probably on 
his way to London, in that year), that Allan 
Cunningham, a raw young man from the 
country, visited Raeburn’s Gallery and had 
speech with the painter whose biography 


74 Raeburn 


he was to bungle so badly twenty-three 
years later. After giving the description 
of the Gallery already quoted, the accuracy 
of which is questioned by Mr. Caw, Cunning- 
ham continues: ‘my astonishment was 
beyond the power of painting to express : 
I had never seen works of art, or at least of 
genius, before, and had no conception of the 
spirit and mind which colours could embody. 
I was much struck at the first glance with 
some Highland chiefs, ‘all plaided and 
plumed in their tartan array,’’ whose pictu- 
resque dress and martial bearing contrasted 
finely with the graver costume and sterner 
brows of the Lowlanders. What I next 
dwelt on was several family groups of ladies 
and children, with snatches of landscape 
behind, where streams descended through 
wild woods or loitered in little holms. But 
that on which my mind finally settled, was 
the visible capacity for thought which most 
of the heads had, together with their massive 
and somewhat gloomy splendour of colouring. 
The artist came in and said a word or two in 
a low tone of voice : some one was probably 
sitting, for he had his palette on his 
thumb.’ 

Raeburn’s brother William died on Thurs- 
day the 6th of December, 1810. Mr. Greig 
gives the text of a letter first published in 
the Scotsman, in which Raeburn writes 
of the death as ‘unexpected,’ and adds, 


* 


Some Contemporary Estimates 75 


“a most excellent and worthy man, to whom 
I was much attached.’ In it he also 
mentions ‘the peculiar situation in which 
I find myself at present, and the great 
demand I have for money’; from which 
it is to be inferred that although he had 
recently purchased St. Bernard’s, perhaps 
in part because of it, he had still financial 
anxieties. 

If the visit to London had no other result 
for Raeburn it at least seems to have had 
the effect of influencing him to be a regular 
contributor to the Royal Academy Ex- 
hibitions. In 181zr he sent his portrait of 
the Rev. Sir Henry Moncrieff Wellwood, Bart., 
and in 1812 three canvases, one of which 
was his famous Chief of the Macdonells, now 
in the Scottish National Gallery, which no 
doubt influenced his election as an Associate 
of the Academy, on 2nd November in that 

ear. 

At the Edinburgh Exhibition of 1812 he 
had 14 pictures, and George Watson showed 
the same number. The Scots Magazine 
published a long critical notice of the ex- 
hibition by ‘ Veritas,’ who wrote of Raeburn 
as ‘a man who would have done honour to 
any age, and whose exertions lately received 
the public compliments of the present 
venerable President of the Royal Academy.’ 
The detailed criticism of Raeburn’s exhibits 
is laudatory, but not without intelligent 


76 Raeburn 


fault-finding as regards details. Of the full- 
length of Lady Innes Ker he wrote: ‘it 
does the highest honour to Mr. Raeburn as 
a man of genius, and deserves our most 
unqualified praise. The attitude is extremely 
easy and natural and the drapery beautifully 
disposed. The picture is entirely free from 
any affectation of light and shadow, and the 
colours of the background are broke in that 
masterly manner, in which Mr. Raeburn 
surpasses most of the artists of the present 
age. In looking at such a picture we regret 
the small field of action offered to such an 
artist in our city, and believe that if he had 
commenced his career in the Metropolis, 
instead of this place, he would now have 
ranked with any master of the present age.’ 
Of one portrait he remarked that it was hung 
too high to be seen, which is a useful side- 
light on the happenings of this season. The 
pushful President had taken full advantage 
of the power his position gave him, in the 
arrangement of the exhibition. Raeburn 
_ entering the room one morning found two 
of his pictures and nine of Watson’s had been 
hung. He suggested that two more of his 
pictures should be placed ‘in a situation 
corresponding to two of Mr. Watson’s, 
though not in so good a light.’ This however 
could not be granted because ‘one of the 
situations was already engaged for another 
picture of Mr. Watson’s.’ This was too much 


Some Contemporary Estimates 


even for Raeburn’s equanimity, and he at 
once decided, ‘as he cannot prevail upon 
himself to act a second part in the eyes of 
the public to any man in his own line,’ to 
withdraw from membership. He did so 
in a short and dignified letter, dated 2nd 
April, stating no reasons, and assuring the 
Society at large of his unfeigned regard. The 
result was inevitable. The Society could 
not afford to lose the support of its most 
brilliant and influential member. Dr. 
McKay records that : ‘ at a general meeting 
held shortly afterwards, Raeburn was re- 
quested to withdraw his resignation, and, 
at the same meeting, he was proposed, 
seconded and elected President for the 
following year.’ The Society did its best 
to placate Watson by a vote of thanks ‘ for 
his long and faithful services’ and a piece 
of plate to the value of twenty-five guineas. 
He exhibited again in 1813, but attended 
no more meetings. 

Raeburn accepted office, but even his 
powerful and urbane influence was unequal 
to the task of repairing the rupture caused 
by the displeasure of the Watson faction, 
and the eager desire of a majority of the 
members to divide the considerable sum of 
money earned by the exhibitions, instead of 
funding it, or part of it, as a reserve of 
strength, and probably also as the basis of 
more extended usefulness. After the 1813 


78 Raeburn 


exhibition, which may be judged from the 
notice in the Scots Magazine to have shown 
a decided decline in merit, the balance in 
hand was divided, and the Society came to 
anend. In order to continue the exhibitions 
Raeburn and his adherents formed an 
‘Edinburgh Exhibition Society,’ which 
existed for three years, but with such 
diminishing success that it then ceased. 
Watson, with his nephew and all his faction, 
held aloof, and the truth of the fable of the 
bundle of sticks was never better illustrated. 
In the three years Raeburn showed 52 
canvases, of which there were only named 
in the catalogues The Lord Justice Clerk, 
General Sir David Baird, and Francis Horner, 
all in 1815. The Scots Magazine notice 
enables us to add to these a ‘ very fine full 
length’ of Mr. J. J. Hope Weir, of Craigie 
Hall. Besides these there were two noble- 
men, twenty-seven gentlemen (one with his 
horse, one with his daughter, and one with 
his lady), a general officer, a Jew, four 
young gentlemen, nine ladies and two 
children. The Scots Magazine evidently 
went over to the enemy camp. Its critic 
attacked Raeburn for errors in drawing and 
colouring, and ‘impropriety and want of 
truth in his shadows, which are generally too 
dark, and often quite purple.’ After a deal 
of scolding, however, he at last gave a word 
of praise ; ‘ the great merit of Mr. Raeburn 


Some Contemporary Estimates 79 


occurs to us to consist in the feeling of 
manliness and genteelity (sic) which he 
conveys in all his portraits of gentlemen, 
and of the delicacy and tenderness he so 
powerfully expresses in his pictures of the 
other sex. He paints with a vigorous and 
determined pencil, expresses well the 
substances he has to depict ; and the glossy 
sides and character of the war horse has long 
been confessed in the number of his happiest 
efforts.’ In a following issue of the maga- 
zine a long letter by U. F. continued the 
attack by praising the critic’s strictures. 
He had ‘heard the same feeling expressed 
in London a few weeks ago at Somerset 
House.” The Kinnoul and Fife portraits 
there were ‘ placed in the most conspicuous 
part of the room,’ and their black and dingy 
hue was rendered the more offensive by Sir 
Thomas Lawrence’s magnificent portrait of 
the Regent. Three months later the maga- 
zine contained a spirited vindication, signed 
‘ Candidus,’ who wrote : 


No one can read the remarks by U. F. without 
perceiving that the direct and chief aim of the 
writer is to lower the reputation of the most dis- 
tinguished portrait painter that Scotland can boast 
of; for the critic’s abuse is truly laborious. While 
the public justly admire that artist’s progressive 
and great improvement, the critic, on the contrary, 
has discovered prevailing defects in his manner, a 
black and dingy hue in his pictures, which his 
admirers, it is said, attribute to some growing defect 


GR 


80 Raeburn 


of vision ! and after talking of the theatrical attitude 
of one picture, he roundly tells us that the attitude 
and dress of another are shocking! . . . was it on 
account of prevailing defects—of dark and dingy 
hues—of theatrical and shocking attitudes that 
our renowned fellow-citizen has just been elected a 
member of the Royal Academy in London? No, 
Sir, I presume it was because that enlightened 
body, and their venerable President, Mr. West, 
deemed it an honour to have Mr. Raeburn one of 
their number. This flattering test of his splendid 
talents is a sufficient answer to all such attacks as 
I now allude to; and the value of it was enhanced 
tenfold by the manner in which the honour was 
conferred; for it is known that with a modesty 
characteristic of true genius, he never asked a 
single individual to vote him that dignity which so 
many solicit in vain. 


Reverting to 1812 it only remains to be 
noted that in this year Henry Raeburn the 
younger, on 1st October, took unto himself 
a wife, Charlotte, daughter of John White of 
Kellerstane and Howden.* Mr. Lawrence- 
Archer mentions ‘a very fine full-size 
portrait’ of her by Raeburn. The young 
couple took up their. residence at St. 
Bernard’s, and remained there, apparently 
to the satisfaction of allconcerned. Raeburn 
was a benevolent grandfather and his wife 
an indulgent grandmother to such of the 
eight children as were born in their lifetime. 


* In the Scots Magazine the notice of the marriage 
describes the lady as ‘ Miss White, daughter of the late 
James White, of Dunmore.’ 


Some Contemporary Estimates 81 


Mrs. Raeburn, now nearly a septuagenarian, 
was doubtless relieved by her daughter-in- 
law from some of her domestic cares, and the 
eldest girl, Eliza, who died at the age of six, 
was the subject of a charming portrait by 
Raeburn. 

Only one picture was sent by Raeburn to 
the Royal Academy in 1813, his portrait of 
Sir G. S. Mackenzie, Bart., but in the follow- 
ing year he contributed four works: the 
Right Hon. Lord Seaforth, General Sir David 
Baird, a lady and a gentleman. Evidently 
he was growing anxious to secure advance- 
ment to full membership. Cunningham 
quotes a letter to another artist (? Chantrey) 
in 1814, in which he wrote: ‘ I observe what 
you say respecting the election of an R.A. ; 
but what am I to do here? They know I 
am on their list; if they choose to elect 
me without solicitation, it will be the more 
honourable to me, and I will think the more 
of it, for I would think it unfair to employ 
those means. I am besides out of the way, 
and have no opportunity ... Write and 
tell me what artists are about, and whether 
anything be indispensable for a person who 
desires to be a member of the Royal Academy. 
Were you sufficiently in health to see 
Somerset House during last exhibition ? 
I had some things there ; but no artist of my 
acquaintance has been kind enough to write 
me one syllable on the subject; to say 


82 Raeburn 


either what he thought of them himself or 
what others thought.’ 

His pictures effected what Raeburn 
desired, without the aid of ‘ solicitation.’ 
He was elected R.A. on roth February, 
and as ‘R.A. Elect’ he sent four portraits 
in 1815: The Earl of Kinnoul, The Earl of 
Fife, Professor Playfair, and a General 
Officer. Cunningham tells us that on this 
occasion he paid his last visit to London, and 
“was welcomed warmly by all his brethren.’ 
Apparently he omitted to comply with some 
of the formalities required, for two years 
later he wrote requesting that the President 
should sign on his behalf. This was 
duly authorised by the Council. Raeburn 
tendered as Diploma Picture his self-por- 
trait, now in the Scottish National Gallery, 
but it was contrary to rule to accept 
this, and it was not until 1821 that he 
delivered the Boy and Rabbit, which was 
found suitable. Cunningham regarded it as 
‘inferior coin’ which throws grave doubt 
on his critical capacity. Further honours 
soon after this time were election to the 
Imperial Academy of Florence, the New 
York Academy (1817), and the Academy of 
Arts, South Carolina (1821). He was also 
elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of 
Edinburgh on 2oth January, 1820, his 
sponsors being Lord Chief Commissioner 
Adam, Dr. (afterwards Sir) David Brewster, 


Victoria and Albert Museum 
MRS. HOBSON OF MARKFIELD 


SIR HENRY RAEBURN 


( face p. 82) 











Some Contemporary Estimates 83 


Principal of the University, and the eminent 
geologist and mineralogist, Sir George 
Mackenzie, of Coul. 

Five pictures at the R.A. in 1816, four 
in 1817, 1818, and 1819, five in 1820 and 
1821, three in 1822, and four in 1823 were 
evidence that Raeburn valued the honour 
conferred on him by the Academy, and 
wished to show his appreciation of it by 
sending work each year. He may be 
absolved from any suspicion of doing so for 
business purposes, as he was always fully 
employed in Edinburgh. The named por- 
traits were (1816) The Rt. Hon. David Boyle, 
Lord Justice Clerk, J. Cowley; (1817) Lady 
Gordon Cumming, W. H. Miller; (1818) 
Lord Montgomerie, Rear-Admiral Sir D. 
Milne, The Rt. Hon. A. Maconochie, Lord 
Advocate; (1819) F. L. Chanirey, R.A, 
A Highland Chief; (1820) The Earl of Hope- 
toun, The Marquis of Huntly in the Highland 
Garb and family tartan, The Duke of Bedford, 
jJagar (presumably Jager), gamekeeper to 
the Earl of Kintore, E. L. Livingston; (1821) 
The Marquis of Bute, Sir John Hay, Bart., 
Earl Compton, and (1822) Lord Douglas. 
Those unnamed were of an Officer of the 
Royal Navy, an Officer, eight Gentlemen, 
two Young Gentlemen, a Boy, Two Ladies, 
and a Lady and Child. 

In 1819 the Duke of Buccleuch desired to 
have a portrait of Scott to hang in his new 


84 Raeburn 


Library at Bowhill. He wrote to Scott 
about it, adding: ‘Raeburn should be 
warned that I am as well acquainted with 
my friend’s hands and arms as with his nose 
—and Vandyck was of my opinion. Many 
of R’s works are shamefully finished—the 
face studied, but everything else neglected. 
This is a fair opportunity of producing some- 
thing really worthy of his skill.” To this 
Scott replied on 15th April: ‘I hesitate a 
little about Raeburn, unless your Grace is 
quite determined. He has very much to do ; 
looks just now chiefly for cash, poor fellow, 
as he can have but a few years to make 
money ; and has twice already made a very 
chowder-headed person of me. I should like 
much (always with your approbation), to 
try Allan, who is a man of real genius, and 
has made one or two glorious portraits, 
though his predilection is to the historical 
branch of the art.’ This reply must have 
been written after deliberation, for three 
weeks earlier Scott wrote to Lockhart: ‘ the 
Duke wants me to sit for a picture in his fine 
new Library and names Raeburn. I should 
like much better to sit to Allan, but it is a 
sin to take up his time with chowder- 
pates.’ 

Exactly what meaning Scott attached to 
the words ‘ chowder-pates ’ and ‘ chowder- 
headed’ is not apparent. Evidently he 
wished to give the Duke’s commission to 


Some Contemporary Estimates 85 


Allan, and the context relieves us from the 
necessity of inferring that Scott lacked 
perception of Raeburn’s greatness in por- 
traiture. His purpose evidently was a 
characteristically kindly desire to help Allan, 
who had painted some ambitious subject 
pictures, the fruit of travel in Circassia, 
which he was unable to sell. Scott, to 
relieve and encourage him, got up a lottery 
for two of these, which produced something 
like a thousand guineas for Allan, who by 
way of grateful response set to work upona . 
picture of The Murder of Archbishop Sharp 
on Magus Moor, a scene in ‘ Old Mortality.’ 
Scott knew well enough that by this time 
Raeburn was again in comfortable circum- 
stances, and could afford to do without the 
commission ; while Allan, ‘a very enter- 
taining person’ for whom he had a great 
liking, was still struggling. 

Were further justification of Scott needed 
it would be found in the fact that his definite 
and reasoned opinions on art were such as 
to place Allan higher than Raeburn. He 
wrote in his ‘ Journal,’ seven years later, 
about the opening of an exhibition: ‘ All 
the Fine Arts have it for their highest and 
most legitimate end and purpose, to affect 
the human passions, or smooth and alleviate 
for a time the more unquiet feelings of the 
mind—to excite wonder, or terror, or pleasure 
or emotion of some kind or other.... In 


86 Raeburn 


painting it is different; it is all become a 
mystery, the secret of which is lodged in a 
few connoisseurs, whose object is not to 
praise the works of such painters as produce 
effect on mankind at large, but to class them 
according to their proficiency in the inferior 
rules of the art, which though most necessary 
to be taught and learned, should yet only be 
considered as the Gradus ad Parnassum— 
the step by which the higher and ultimate 
object of a great popular effect is to be 
attained. They have all embraced the very 
style of criticism which induced Michael 
Angelo to call some Pope a poor creature, 
when, turning his attention from the general 
effect of a noble statue, his Holiness began 
to criticise the hem of the robe. This seems 
to me the cause of the decay of this delightful 
art, especially in history, its noblest branch. 
As I speak to myself, I may say that a 
painting should, to be excellent, have some- 
thing to say to the mind of a man, like 
myself, well educated, and susceptible of 
those feelings which anything strongly 
recalling natural emotion is likely to inspire. 
Wilkie, the far more than Teniers of Scot- 
land, certainly gave many new ideas. So 
does Will. Allan, though overwhelmed with 
their rebukes about colouring and grouping, 
against which they are not willing to place 
his general and original merits... . 

It is not at all improbable that Raeburn 


Some Contemporary Estimates 87 


himself would have accepted as sound this 
expression of an opinion so entirely wrong 
from the present-day standpoint, when 
“proficiency in the inferior rules of art’ is 
ranked higher than imagination. Raeburn 
practised his art as a tradesman, and gave, 
or at any rate has left us, no evidence that 
he had any imaginative capacity behind his 
unique and wonderful power of seeing, under- 
standing, and representing the pictorial 
possibilities of what was before him. He 
lacked the yearnings of Reynolds for 
‘history,’ and though his background land- 
scapes show a fine perception of scenic 
beauty, he so little shared Gainsborough’s 
passion for it that he never, so far as we 
know, painted a single landscape or even 
made an outdoor sketch. He went to his 
studio daily like a tradesman to his shop, 
and was only a painter from g to 5.30; the 
rest of his time being given wholly to various 
hobbies, athletic games, family intercourse, 
and social pleasure. 

The Duke of Buccleuch died at Lisbon on 
the 2oth April, before Scott’s letter reached 
him, and so the matter ended. Seven years 
later Scott had the satisfaction to see at 
Bowhill the destined space over the library 
fireplace occupied by the portrait painted 
for Constable in 1808, part of the wreckage 
of the disaster which involved Scott in 1825: 
a repetition on a larger scale of that which 


88 Raeburn 


nearly twenty years earlier had interrupted 
Raeburn’s placid and prosperous career: in 
each case the result of being tempted into 
meddling with business ventures without 
adequate business knowledge. 

In 1819 there was formed in Edinburgh 
an organisation of the sort much in vogue 
about that time, the Institution for the 
Encouragement of the Fine Arts in Scotland. 
This, with a membership of as many art 
lovers as were willing to pay £50 for the 
privilege, held an exhibition of old masters 
in Raeburn’s gallery in 1819, and a second 
one in the following year ; after which, find- 
ing that the supply of suitable material was 
being used up, it was decided to have modern 
pictures ; and the artists, who had had no 
opportunity of showing their work since 
1816, were ready to comply. Raeburn 
contributed to the 1821 exhibition his full- 
length of the Earl of Hopetoun, and the Earl 
of Kinnoul’s gamekeeper (both in the R.A. 
the previous year), and a portrait of a lady. 
In 1822 his contributions were Professor 
Pillans, Sir John Hay, Bart., and H. W. 
Williams (Grecian Williams, now in the 
National Portrait Gallery). 

All might have gone well with the Institu- 
tion if its directorate had been more judicious 
in dealing with the artists, whose pictures 
were essential to the success of the exhibi- 
tions. Warned, it may be, by recollections 


Some Contemporary Estimates 89 


of the mess the artists had made of their 
own enterprise, they excluded them from 
membership and denied them any voice 
in the management of the Institution. 
Artists, though very often singularly incom- 
petent to succeed in concerted action, are 
invariably hostile to lay interference in their 
affairs, and therefore it is not surprising that 
those of Edinburgh grew restive under the 
well-meant but not wholly wise rule of the 
Institution, and set about forming a new 
society.* 

Raeburn alone among them was exempt 
from the ban against full membership of the 
Institution and so he had no _ personal 
grievance ; but when it came to action he 
did not hesitate to throw in his lot with his 
fellows. On 24th December, 1822, he sent 
a letter to James Skene, the Secretary, 
setting out in a very able manner the case 
of the artists. What the result might have 
been, had he lived, it is only possible to 
conjecture. The exhibitions were held each 
year until 1826, although the discontent 
of the artists continued. In that year a 
Scottish Academy was at last formed; 
George Watson coming into his own again 


* A similar case was that of the Liverpool Academy 
of Arts, formed in 1810, which was brought under the 
control of the Liverpool Royal Institution, founded 
some years later ; from which, after much friction, it at 
last freed itself in 1830. 


go Raeburn 


in the office of President, which, had Rae- 
burn lived, would no doubt have been his. 

Raeburn’s letter is given im extenso in 
Mr. Caw’s valuable Scottish Painting, Past 
and Present, so I need only quote one 
passage which is of biographical interest : 
‘As for myself, I have nothing to gain by 
the measure. I have in my own possession 
as many of the means of improvement as I 
have time to attend to, and my business, 
though it may fall off, cannot admit of 
enlargement. In so far, therefore, as I am 
personally concerned I am quite indifferent 
about it, but I wish well to the arts of this 
place, which I think this measure would 
rather tend to improve, and I wish well to 
the Artists, because I believe them to be 
as worthy a set of men as can be found in 
any profession, and I have uniformly 
received so much kindness and regard from 
them, that I cannot refuse to go along with 
them in any matter that appears reasonable.’ 

In a letter to Wilkie in September 1819 
Raeburn lamented his isolation from the 
artists of London: ‘I know almost as little 
about them as if I were living at the Cape of 
Good Hope.’ He asked for information as 
to the charges of portrait painters, ‘for I 
am raising my prices too, and it would be 
a guide to me.’ 

Except for his election as a Fellow of the 
Royal Society on 24th January, 1820, the 


Some Contemporary Estimates gI 


years 1820 and 1821 passed without eventful 
happenings in Raeburn’s busy, cheerful 
life. A writer in the Scots Magazine for 
May 1821, dealing with the Edinburgh 
Exhibition, made some interesting critical 
comments. For two years there had been 
only displays of old masters. The critic 
opined that this had had a good effect on 
the painters, and found ‘the symptoms of 
expanding talents very conspicuous.’ Of 
Raeburn, he said he 


maintains his wonted ascendancy in portrait 
painting ; and his picture of Lord Hopetoun, as 
well as of the gamekeeper to Lord Kinnoul, may 
justly be ranked among the first works of the kind 
which this island has produced. To this distin- 
guished gentleman, indeed, the arts are indebted 
for the first rapid advance which painting made in 
this country ; and if his works are compared with 
any of the artists who preceded him, the step made 
is indeed immense. It is probably owing therefore 
to the vast accumulation of business with which 
he has so long been overloaded, that there are so 
many symptoms of haste and imperfect finishings 
in his compositions ; and that the spectator, whose 
admiration has been awakened by the vigour and 
life which his countenances exhibit, is compelled 
to acknowledge with regret that the remainder of 
the picture seems to have been completed by a 
very inferior hand. That he himself should finish 
all parts of his pictures with the same care as the 
countenance is indeed impossible; but we can 
conceive no reason why he and all other celebrated 
artists should not, like Vandyke and Titian, employ 
young men to assist them in their works, who 
would both imbibe, early in life, the excellencies of 


92 Raeburn 


their manner, and enable them by directing their 
individual attention to the principal objects to 
produce much more perfect compositions than the 
single efforts of any individual could accomplish. 


Several descriptions of Raeburn relate 
to 1820: the best being Haydon’s brief 
thumb-nail sketch already quoted. That 
by John Wilson’s eldest daughter, Mrs. 
Ferrier (writing fifty years later), is a stock 
piece in Raeburn biography since W. R. 
Andrew printed it, so it will suffice to extract 
her description of the man: ‘The great 
portrait painter, as far as I can recollect 
him, had a very impressive appearance, his 
full, dark, lustrous eyes, with ample brow 
and dark hair, at this time scant. His tall 
frame had a dignified aspect. I can well 
remember him, seated in an arm-chair 
in the evening, at the fireside of the small 
drawing room, newspaper in his hand, with 
his family around him. His usual mode of 
address to us when we were spending the 
evenings, while he held out his hand with a 
kind smile, was “ well, my dears, what is 
your opinion of things in general to-day? ” 
These words always filled us with consterna- 
tion, and we all huddled together like a 
flock of scared sheep, vainly attempting 
some answer by gazing from one to the 
other ; and with what delight and sense of 
freedom we were led away to be seated at 
the tea-table covered with cookies, bread 


Some Contemporary Estimates 93 


and butter, and jelly! From this place of 
security we stole now and then a fearful 
glance at the arm-chair in which Sir Henry 
reclined.’ 

The contrast between this rather torpid 
elderly gentleman and Haydon’s ‘ glorious 
fellow, and more boisterous than any’ at 
Geddes’ dinner table is worthy of note. 
Mrs. Ferrier’s pen-portrait is followed by an 
entertaining description of old Mrs. Raeburn, 
evidently an ideal grandmother. Her daugh- 
ter-in-law, ‘ the beautiful Charlotte White of 
Howden’ and her husband, Henry the 
second, are just mentioned. There is a 
neat word-picture too of a ‘daft’ beggar- 
man, a village ‘ natural’ who said, pointing 
to the banks of the Water of Leith, ‘ Ou ay, 
bairns, I can weel remember Adam and 
Eve skelpin’ aboot naket amang the gowans 
on the braes there.’ He was kindly used 
by Raeburn, and was given his old clothes. 
As he was rather short, and Raeburn stood 
six feet two, the tails of his coat nearly 
reached the ground. 

A younger daughter of John Wilson, Mrs. 
Gordon, also described Raeburn in her 
memoir of her father, who in 1820 set up 
house at 20 Ann Street, ‘the culminating 
point of the suburb of Stockbridge... 
then quite out of town and still (1879) a 
secluded place . . . The old mansion of St. 
Bernard’s . . . offered its hospitality and 


94 Raeburn 


kindly intercourse. No one can forget how, 
in the circle of his own family, that dignified 
old gentleman stood himself a very picture, 
his fine intellectual countenance lighted 
up by eyes most expressive, whose lambent 
glow gave to his face that inward look of 
soul he knew so well to impart to his own 
unsurpassed portraits. Genius shed its 
peculiar beauty over his aspect, yet memory 
loves more than aught else the recollections 
of the benevolent heart that lent to his 
manner a grace of kindliness as sincere as it 
was delightful.’ 

In March 1822 Lord Montagu, in writing 
to Scott, took occasion to remind him of his 
old promise to sit to Raeburn for a portrait 
of himself, to be hung at Bowhill, just before 
the death of the fourth Duke of Buccleuch. 
Sir Walter replied: ‘I think it will be as 
well to let Duke Walter, when he feels his 
own ground in the world, take his own taste 
in the way of adorning his house. Two or 
three years will make him an adequate 
judge on such a subject, and if they will not 
make me more beautiful, they have ak 
chance of making me more picturesque. . . 
If the portrait had been begun, that were 
another matter ; as it is, the Duke, when he 
is two or three. years older, shall command 
my picture...’ Lord Montagu acquiesced 
as to the portrait for Bowhill, but asked 
Scott to sit without delay for a smaller 


Some Contemporary Estimates 95 


picture on his own behalf. Scott, in replying, 
assured him of the pleasure with which he 
would contribute the desired head to the 
halls of Ditton, and promised to arrange 
with Raeburn on returning to Edinburgh in 
May. Allan was still in his mind, and he 
added a remark to the effect that he was a 
really rising historical painter, and he 
“should be sorry to see him seduced into 
the lucrative branch which carries off most 
artists of that description.’ 

This portrait, as well as two replicas, one 
for his own gallery, was in due course painted 
by Raeburn. Lockhart described it as ‘ the 
very last work of MRaeburn’s pencil’: 
perhaps one of these was the last he 
completed. 

In August there were very great happen- 
ings in Edinburgh. George the Fourth, 
although he did many things better left 
undone, had a fine instinct for doing, and 
did much that was wise and statesmanlike ; 
and in this category we may class his visit 
to Scotland in August 1822. No reigning 
British monarch had set foot in the country 
since the accession, more than a century 
earlier, of the House of Hanover. The 
visit was an excellent corrective for lingering 
Jacobitism, warmed by traditions of ‘ Bonnie 
Prince Charlie ’—his picturesque raid in 
1745, and his romantic adventures after 
Culloden. Edinburgh, with Sir Walter as 

HR 


96 Raeburn 


stage-manager, rose to the occasion and in- 
dulged in a fortnight of exuberantly loyal 
demonstration. Lockhart gives a good de- 
scription of it, not neglecting mention of such 
comical incidents as Sir Walter’s assumption 
of Highland garb, his mishap with the 
glass that the king drank from, the grotesque 
appearance of Alderman Sir William Curtis 
in a kilt, the untimely arrival of the parson 
poet Crabbe on a visit to Sir Walter Scott, 
and his attempt to talk to Highlanders in 
French. What part, if any, Raeburn took 
in the festivities is not recorded, except that 
on the last day, 29th August, he attended by 
command at Hopetoun House, about nine 
miles west of the capital. The king, who 
had his head-quarters at Dalkeith Palace, 
made a ceremonial progress through Edin- 
burgh to Queensferry, and thence to Hope- 
toun House, where there was a _ great 
assemblage of Scottish notables. Taking 
the sword of Sir Alexander Hope he knighted 
Adam Ferguson, Deputy Keeper of the 
Regalia of Scotland, and Henry Raeburn. 
He left at 2.45 for Port Edgar, where he 
embarked on the royal yacht. 

According to W. R. Andrew it was reported 
that His Majesty was so struck with Rae- 
burn’s fine person and dignified bearing, 
that he said to Scott, who was in constant 
attendance, he would have made Raeburn a 
baronet could he have done so without 


Some Contemporary Estimates 97 


injustice to the memory of Reynolds. Andrew 
said also that the king expressed a wish 
to have his portrait painted by Raeburn, 
which we may assume to be true, as in the 
following May, Raeburn was appointed His 
Majesty’s “ Limner and Painter in Scotland, 
with all fees, profits, salaries, rights, privileges 
and advantages thereto belonging.’ The 
pleasure that this honour no doubt gave 
Raeburn was the only advantage he enjoyed, 
and the portrait was never painted.* 

On the day after the happenings at Hope- 
toun House there was a jovial dinner at 
St. Bernard’s, at which the other new knight, 
Wilkie, and a good many others were present, 
and there was an abundance of jollity and 
joking. Sir Henry’s health having been 
drunk, he made ‘a very modest reply’: 
Sir Adam, not feeling equal to rivalling him 
as a speaker, when he had been toasted 
offered a song instead, and gave ‘ The Laird 
of Cockpen’ and ‘ The Turnemspike,’ with 
much acceptance. Mrs. Raeburn, said 
Wilkie, would on no account allow herself 
to be called ‘My Lady ’—which seems odd, 
as she had in her early days been the wife 
of a so-called Count. A public dinner was 
given to Raeburn on 5th October, at which 


* An enterprising Edinburgh publisher, D. Hatton, 
did his best to supply the deficiency by getting the 
king’s head substituted for that of Dr. T. C. Hope on an 
old mezzotint plate by T. Hodgetts. 


98 Raeburn 


Alexander Nasmyth presided and proposed 
the principal toast. 

The painting of the portrait for Lord 
Montagu apparently brought Sir Henry 
more closely in touch with Sir Walter, al- 
though they had probably been long 
acquainted : indeed since Scott’s youth, if 
the portraits of him as a boy in Highland 
costume and as a young man be authentic: 
I have not seen them, but they are apparently 
accepted as genuine. Scott, soon after 
Raeburn’s death, said to John Morrison : 
“T never knew Raeburn, I may say, till 
during his painting my last portrait.” 
Scott’s impression that his was the last 
portrait painted by Raeburn is probably 
erroneous. 

The account given by the venerable Dr. 
Andrew Duncan of his last meeting with 
Raeburn is probably credible, although the 
‘Tribute of Regard,’ in which it occurs, is 
rich in blunders. ‘I was his opponent in 
the last game at golf which he ever played. 
On Saturday, the 7th of June, 1823, I called 
at his painting-rooms, after concluding the 
business I had allotted for the day. After 
he had also finished his business we walked 
together to Leith Links. There, removed 
from the smoke of the city of Edinburgh, 
we conjoined, with pleasing conversation, 
a trial of skill at a salutary and interesting 
exercise, to which we had both a strong 


Some Contemporary Estimates 99 


attachment.’ Thereafter they took ‘a 
temperate meal’ in the company of friends 
in the Golfers’ Hall ; where hung Sir Henry’s 
portraits of John Gray, Esq., ‘a social 
spirit,/ and James Balfour Esq., singing a 
joyous song, ‘thought by many to be one 
of the best he ever painted.’ A _ third 
picture, of Mr. John Taylor of the Exchequer, 
“one of the best golfers in Scotland,’ was 
commissioned (Sir Henry knew how to 
combine pleasure and business) and then, 
“after partaking of a sober but social glass, 
we returned to Edinburgh in the same 
carriage, making plans for another such 
meeting. 

John Morrison met Miss Edgeworth (on a 
visit to Scott), in York Place ‘in the paint- 
ing gallery of Sir Henry Raeburn, who told 
me there was an excursion projected to Fife, 
to visit the castle of Ravensheugh, and may 
be as far as St. Andrews.’ Scott wrote to 
B. R. Haydon on the day after Raeburn’s 
death: ‘this has been a severe season for 
the arts: about a fortnight since I had a 
very merry party through Fifeshire, with 
our Chief Baron (Sergeant Sheppard) and 
the Lord Chief Commissioner, and, above all, 
Sir Henry Raeburn, our famous portrait 
painter. No one could seem more healthy 
than he was, or more active, and of an 
athletic spare habit, that seemed made for 
a very long life.’ 


I0o Raeburn 


Morrison, continuing his story, says the 
weather was hot; and Sir Henry, not 
accustomed to long walking, and exposed, 
although in summer, to the keen air of Fife, 
had taken cold; Sir Walter observed that 
he walked with his hat in his hand, Miss 
Edgeworth having hold of his other arm. 
On the day after his return to Edinburgh he 
walked as usual to his gallery in York Place, 
and proceeded to touch the portrait of a 
Mrs. Dennistoun, but was unable to proceed. 
He walked home, and with considerable 
headache went to bed, from whence he 
never arose. Morrison was some miles away 
from Edinburgh when Raeburn was taken 
ill, on his business as a surveyor, but having 
occasion to return to have instruments 
repaired, he heard of his friend’s illness, 
and went down late in the day to St. 
Bernard’s. ‘The servants told me that 
every hope of his recovery was over, that 
he was lying motionless on his bed, and the 
family had retired. I mentioned to the 
servant who was in waiting and used to 
arrange his palette, that I wished much to 
have a last look, to which he readily agreed. 
It was about twenty-four hours before his 
death; he was lying motionless, with his 
eyes shut, but not asleep. I touched softly 
the hand that was lying across his breast, 
the hand which had been so often stretched 
out to welcome me.’ 


Some Contemporary Estimates 01 


The cause of Sir Henry’s sudden, unex- 
pected death is not stated, and is beyond 
diagnosis by a layman. Duncan, although 
a physician, only says, ‘ Sir Henry returned 
in bad health; and the aid of his medical 
friends to resist the progress of his disease 
was of no avail. It proved fatal in a few 
days.’ Morrison tells us that ‘prior to 
this excursion with Miss Edgeworth Sir 
Henry had symptoms of falling off.’ ‘I 
sometimes,’ he had previously said, ‘lose 
sight of the picture and stand still in a kind 
of dream; while the picture changes its 
aspect, and sometimes looks to be composed 
of many figures. A few days ago one of my 
teeth fell out ; it was fresh and good, and 
gave me no pain. To-day the same thing 
happened, the tooth was one of my best. 
It came out, or rather fell out, without giving 
me any pain ; and no blood followed.’ On 
my mentioning this to Dr. Saunders, who 
attended him at his death, ‘I wish,’ said 
the Doctor, ‘that I had known of these 
symptoms sooner.’ One may easily 
imagine the look of sagacity with which 
this was uttered. It has to be remembered 
that Raeburn’s parents were both short- 
lived, and that his brother died at about 
the same age as the painter. 

Sir Henry was buried, not in his burying- 
ground at the parish church of St. Cuthbert’s, 
but at the adjoining new Bishop Sandford’s 


I02 Raeburn 


Chapel (Scottish Episcopal), now known as 
St. John’s Church, in the enclosed ‘ dormi- 
tory’ at the east end. No memorial was 
erected until many years after, when a 
tablet was placed on the wall anonymously, 
I believe by the late J. Irvine Smith. Lady 
Raeburn, although nearly eighty years of 
age at the time of her husband’s death, is 
said to have survived him for ten years. 
Henry Raeburn the younger continued at 
St. Bernard’s until 1826, after which he re- 
moved to No. 19 St. Bernard’s Crescent. 
Eventually he bought the estate of Charles- 
field, Midlothian,“ a snug old house near 
Midcalder,’’ where he and his family continued 
formany years. Dr. John Brown’s account of 
the place is extremely interesting. Henry had 
a family of eight children. One daughter died 
in childhood, but threesons and four daughters 
survived their parents. The sons all died 
without issue. The eldest surviving daughter 
married Sir William Andrew, and their son, 
W. R. Andrew, M.A., Oxon., Barrister at 
law, was author of a biography of his great- 
grandfather. John Peter Raeburn, of 
Charlesfield, who lent a number of pictures 
to the R.S.A. in 1863, was presumably a son 
of Henry, and brother of L. W. Raeburn, 
mentioned by Dr. John Brown in 1874, and 
of Miss Charlotte Raeburn of Edinburgh, 
who was lender to the exhibition in 1881 of 
D. G. Steell’s Pepper, a favourite terrier. 


Some Contemporary Estimates 103 


This granddaughter of Raeburn I distinctly 
remember a few years before that date: a 
dashing, handsome, fashionably appointed 
dame of middle age, remarkable for her fine 
pink and white complexion and dazzlingly 
bright and beautiful large dark eyes, an 
inheritance from her grandfather, which at 
the time reminded me of Scott’s description 
of the eyes of Robert Burns. She was 
generally attended by ‘Pepper’ or some- 
thing else of that sort. She is said to have 
been the last Raeburn, and so far as I know 
and have been able to ascertain, there is 
now no living descendant of Sir Henry. 
The unfinished pictures left in Raeburn’s 
painting room were so numerous, according 
to Dr. Andrew Duncan, that it would take 
three or four years for them to be completed 
by John Syme (afterwards R.S.A.), who had 
been employed for the purpose. Syme was 
probably a pupil and assistant, and from 
this and other indications we may reasonably 
infer that although Raeburn did not carry 
the practice as far as Ramsay, Reynolds, 
and other contemporaries, he did have 
assistance in the production of his portraits, 
especially towards the end of his life, when 
he was overwhelmed with business. In this 
way the inferiority of some of his works may 
best be accounted for. In 1834 Syme showed 
at the R.S.A. Exhibition an equestrian 
portrait of Henry Raeburn of St. Bernards ; 


104 Raeburn 


the horse painted by the late Sir Henry 
Raeburn. 

According to an article in the European 
Magazine for November 1823 Raeburn’s 
practice was reported to have been worth 
about £3,000 a year, and there was a proposal 
that Thomas Phillips, R.A., should go to 
Edinburgh to take his place. That artist 
and his wife actually went there to look into 
the matter, but nothing resulted. 

David Wilkie succeeded to Raeburn’s 
Royal appointment. Soon after the latter’s 
death he was gazetted as Historical Painter 
to His Majesty for Scotland, wee Sir H. 
Raeburn deceased. 

In April 1824 there was an exhibition of 
57 portraits by Raeburn in his Gallery, 32 
York Place. From the sixpenny Catalogue 
it is interesting to learn that the charges for 
admission were two shillings in the daytime, 
and three shillings in the evening: the 
increased price then being no doubt due to 
the fact that ‘the Gallery is brilliantly 
lighted up with Oil Gas.’ A season ticket 
admitting at any time cost seven shillings. 
In 1863, forty pictures by Raeburn were 
included in an exhibition at the R.S.A., and 
in 1876 the great Raeburn Exhibition, 
privately organised, was held there. There 
were 325. exhibits, Its was; 1. believe, 
organised in order to help Raeburn’s descen- 
dants to sell some of the pictures in their 


Some Contemporary Estimates 105 


possession. The result was not in that 
respect very satisfactory, and at a sale in 
London a year later, a number of pictures 
brought small prices. Gradually it was 
borne in upon the dealers that Raeburn was 
worthy their attention—James Orrock is 
said to have been instrumental in opening 
their eyes—and during the present century 
fine examples of the master have commanded 
great prices. 


CHAPTER IV. 


INFLUENCE ON CONTEMPORARIES AND 
SUCCESSORS. 


AEBURN has been styled the Reynolds 
R of Scotland: it might be claimed for 
him that he was something more ; 
for, while the English master had at least 
one rival of equal, perhaps greater, genius 
in Gainsborough, the Scot enjoyed an undi- 
vided supremacy. Reynolds was a potent 
influence in his own time and afterwards, 
but so was Gainsborough ; and one of the 
most brilliant of their immediate successors, 
John Hoppner, certainly looked to the latter 
as a model. The Book of Beauty style of 
portrait that Lawrence evolved eventually 
became the dominant type for a considerable 
time, in fact until the Pre-Raphaelite upheaval 
came to correct the vice of trivial pretty- 
prettiness that had corroded the English 
school during the darkness of the early 
Victorian period. 

Raeburn encountered no rivalry in his 
lifetime more serious than that of George 
Watson, a second-rate follower of Reynolds ; 
and he lived to see growing up around him 

106 


National Gallery 


-COL. BRYCE MCMURDO 


SIR HENRY RAEBURN 


face p. 106) 








Influence on Contemporaries 107 


younger painters like Sir John Watson 
Gordon, Andrew Geddes, Colvin Smith, 
Samuel Mackenzie, John Syme, and William 
Yellowlees (nicknamed the little Raeburn), 
all strongly influenced by him. Subse- 
quently to his death that influence is obvious 
in the portraiture generally of later men like 
Sir George Reid and John Pettie, and at the 
present time, Mr. Fiddes Watt. No equal 
to him in portraiture ever appeared, even 
among the distinguished Scott Lauder group, 
or the men of that Glasgow school which 
brought valuable new impulses into our 
Northern painting. Raeburn did not, for a 
long time, have much influence on any 
English painters, for the sufficient reason 
that they knew nothing about him. Even 
so late as 1866 we find those well-informed 
writers, the Redgraves, bracketing him with 
the followers of Lawrence, frankly adding 
to their futile estimate of his art that in 
forming it they laboured under the difficulty 
of having little opportunity of seeing his 
works. ‘Those possessed by the National 
Gallery of Scotland,’ they continued, ‘do 
not impress us with so high an opinion of 
Raeburn’s merits as his reputation among 
his brother artists wouldimply . . . it may 
fairly be assumed that he owed part of the 
reputation which he enjoyed to his somewhat 
isolated position as the head of his profession 
in Scotland, and might not have been able 


108 Raeburn 


to sustain it to the full, had he removed to 
London.’ 

In England generally, and even among 
portrait painters and other artists, it was 
my experience that, up toa couple of decades 
later than this pronouncement, Raeburn was 
either entirely unknown, or else regarded as 
of little account. Now that he is coming at 
last into his own it may well be that he will 
become a greater influence in English art 
than either Reynolds or Gainsborough. 

It has been usual to write of Raeburn as a 
phenomenon: an ignoramus who became 
a great painter without climbing to excellence 
up the usual ladder. This may be regarded 
as due less to the facts of the case than to 
our ignorance of them. We know a little 
more about those relative to Reynolds and 
Gainsborough, and on examining their 
record we find nothing in the way of external 
influence to account for their excellence, 
which was due to innate genius just as much 
with them as with Raeburn. Reynolds 
spent a couple of years in the studio of 
Thomas Hudson, and he also derived some, 
perhaps more, benefit from William Gandy. 
After that, such teaching as he had was from 
the old masters of Italy and the Nether- 
lands. Gainsborough no doubt picked up 
much useful knowledge during his early 
years (1741-1746) in London, but from the 
little we know about him during that period 


Influence on Contemporaries 109g 


it is a safe inference that he was not a regular 
student or apprentice under any master, but 
rather a struggling young craftsman, who 
arrived at painting by way of drawing and 
engraving: first with a silversmith, then 
with illustrators like Gravelot, Hayman, and 
Grignon. After Gainsborough married and 
left London in his twentieth year for Ipswich, 
he had practically no association with other 
painters for more than a dozen years. Joshua 
Kirby, the sole exception, is negligible as an 
influence, and so is Lieutenant-Governor 
Thicknesse, though he took credit to himself 
for setting Gainsborough on the right path. 
After going to Bath about 1759 Gainsborough 
made good use of the opportunities it afforded 
of seeing and studying old masters, especially 
Vandyck. 

Raeburn’s growth to great excellence as a 
painter does not seem to have been more 
accidental than that of his two most dis- 
tinguished contemporaries. There is no 
evidence in his case such as there was in 
theirs of a determined passion even in child- 
hood for art, but at school he showed unusual 
cleverness in drawing, and earned prizes for 
‘writing.’ That the classes of the ‘ Trustees’ 
Academy ’ were actually held in the building 
where he lived and was taught, is a fact to 
be remembered. The selection for him of a 
jeweller as master when the time came for 
him to be apprenticed presupposes his having 


ILO Raeburn 


shown some artistic capacity: just as the 
boy Gainsborough was sent by his father 
to a London silversmith as a first step in an 
art career. 

Either before or early in his apprenticeship 
Raeburn began to paint miniatures, and this 
having been noticed by his master and by 
David Deuchar, the latter undertook to give 
him lessons. Deuchar was quite capable of 
teaching him a good deal, and some two 
years later he, or Gilliland, brought Raeburn 
under the notice of David Martin, who gave 
him pictures to copy, and helped him suffi- 
ciently to earn a grateful acknowledgment 
by Raeburn in after-life. It is a reasonable 
inference, and probable, that Martin 
employed Raeburn, as Allan Ramsay had 
employed him, and as was the common 
usage of the period, to work as a journeyman 
in his studio. Those portraits by Raeburn 
which we know to be or find reason to class 
as early productions have qualities in 
common with the few pictures by Martin 
that are to be found in public galleries, 
which, although they do not fully represent 
his range, suffice to show that he was a 
sound, capable portraitist in the Ramsay 
manner, though they are much drier in 
quality, and otherwise inferior to the work 
of his master. We have to bear in mind that 
Martin must have had considerable merit 
if the story be true that Ramsay, when in 


Influence on Contemporaries III 


Rome, sent for him to come there and bring 
his ‘drawings’ in order that he might 
exhibit them to confound the pretensions of 
the Italian artists. So few of Martin’s 
pictures are available as material for study, 
that we may be rating him as unjustly as 
the Redgraves rated Raeburn ; and for the 
same reason. He may have been the author 
of accepted Raeburns: I have been told by 
a connoisseur that on one or more such he 
had detected Martin’s signature. 

After the eventful rupture with Martin, 
(the date of which we do not know and so 
are not able to measure the duration or 
importance of the connection) Raeburn went 
to Rome, and there spent a matter of two 
years, in emulation of Sir Joshua’s example : 
an advantage which Gainsborough did not 
enjoy. 

A brief summary of what is known about 
the state of pictorial art in Scotland up to 
the time when Raeburn emerged will suffice 
to show under what conditions he became a 
painter. In George Jamesone (1587 ?- 
1644), Scotland produced a capable portrait 
painter rather earlier than England; but 
it should be remembered that William 
Dobson (1610-1646) was a contemporary. 
They both derived from the Flemish school ; 
Jamesone is said to have been a pupil of 
Rubens, and Dobson was an assistant to 
Vandyck. After Jamesone’s day Scotland 

IR 


II2 Raeburn 


was never without painters, mainly of 
portraits, although national poverty and 
Calvinistic prejudice were both unfavourable 
to the encouragement of pictorial art, which 
seems to be expressly prohibited in the 
second commandment of the Mosaic 
decalogue. 

The principal men between the time of 
Jamesone and the advent of Raeburn were 
the Scougalls and Sir John Medina: the 
latter a foreigner who found it worth his 
while to settle in Edinburgh. There is 
significance in the fact that as early as 1729 
a ‘School of St. Luke’ was established in 
Edinburgh for the encouragement and 
teaching of the fine arts. Its President was 
George Marshall, a pupil of Scougall, and on 
the original list of members we find Roderick 
Chalmers, portrait painter (the Secretary), 
William Adam, architect (father of the 
famous Adam brothers), Allan Ramsay, 
John Alexander, portrait painter (a 
descendant of Jamesone), and the Nories. 

Although this School ceased sooner or 
later to exist, the intellectual movement of 
which it was a manifestation continued, 
resulting in the formation in 1760 of that 
‘Trustees’ Academy’ which endured for a 
century and a half, and in the present 
century was merged in the new Edinburgh 
College of Art. 

Allan Ramsay, ‘the most sensible man 


Influence on Contemporaries 113 


of all living artists,’ who was only sixteen 
years old when the School of St. Luke was 
established, lived and practised his art in 
Edinburgh until about 1756 (the year of 
Raeburn’s birth), with the exception of an 
early visit to London, two years or so (1736- 
1738) spent in Italy, and a second, shorter 
visit. Mr. Caw is of opinion that ‘ most of 
his best work was done during the eighteen 
years he remained in Scotland’ (after his 
return from Italy). 

On the art and artists of Edinburgh 
Ramsay’s influence as the leading portrait 
painter there until his middle age must have 
been very potent. It was strengthened as a 
factor in Raeburn’s development by the 
return in 1775 to Edinburgh of David Martin, 
Ramsay’s pupil and assistant. The ill- 
founded conjecture of Redgrave was that 
“no doubt, Raeburn in some degree founded 
his art upon that of Reynolds, though... 
we suspect that he studied Reynolds through 
the fine mezzotints of McArdell and others, 
rather than direct from his paintings.’ It 
is much more probable that he was influenced 
by the paintings of Allan Ramsay, of which 
there were many in Edinburgh, and which 
Martin would almost certainly recommend 
to him as models. 

Alexander Nasmyth was another pupil of 
Ramsay who was in practice in Edinburgh 
as a portrait painter from about 1778, and 


I14 Raeburn 


painted, as well as he could, in the manner of 
his master. He seems to have been 
Raeburn’s closest professional friend. He 
spent two years (1782-1784) studying in 
Italy, and it is very likely that his report to 
Raeburn when he returned was the prime 
cause of the latter’s visit to that country 
in 1785. 

As regards Raeburn’s early miniature 
work, of which we know so little, there were 
some very fair practitioners in Edinburgh 
at the time : among them Deuchar’s friend, 
John Brown ; but his long absence in Italy 
(civca 1770-1781) tends to exclude him as a 
direct influence. 

There is nothing beyond what has already 
been mentioned to show what intercourse 
Raeburn had with other artists in Edinburgh. 
Farington, in 1801, said that: ‘ Raeburn 
and Nasmith do not associate much with 
the other artists, and hold themselves very 
high. Raeburn scarcely indeed with any of 
the profession.’ This, however, is, I think, 
discounted by Haydon’s lively picture of 
a convivial evening at the house of Andrew 
Geddes which I have quoted. We know 
also that Raeburn was a prime mover in 
the efforts by the artists which resulted after 
his death in the formation of the Scottish 
Academy, and that the exhibitions of the 
Associated Artists, with the exception of 
the first in 1808, (when his affairs were 


Influence on Contemporaries II5 


disordered) were in his gallery. He may 
have ‘held himself very high’ as regards 
friendly association, (perhaps he had not 
unbent sufficiently to please his English 
visitor) but clearly he was, up to the end of 
his life, keenly alive to the well-being of his 
fellow artists, and desirous of doing all in 
his power to advance their interests. 
Nasmyth, two years his junior, we know 
to have been a friend of long standing, which 
makes it, at first blush, seem the more 
remarkable that Raeburn should never have 
met Robert Burns, who was one of Nasmyth’s 
cronies : that is if he did not meet him, as to 
which we have only negative evidence. It 
should be borne in mind, however, that 
probably Raeburn was not in Edinburgh at 
all during the poet’s first visit, which ended 
on the 5th May, 1787. Raeburn returned 
from Italy some time in the course of that 
year. Burns came again to Edinburgh in 
September, and remained for some months— 
he was back in Mauchline in February or 
March 1788—but during this second stay 
he was for a considerable time laid up with 
a broken leg. He made several excursions, 
and he was also much occupied by his 
sentimental adventure with Clarinda. Rae- 
burn was, we may assume, pretty fully 
occupied after his recent return from Italy, 
establishing himself in a studio, picking up 
the threads of his activities and interests, 


r16 Raeburn 


professional and social; feeling acutely the 
need to repair his finances after a costly two 
years of travel and study: not at all in the 
mood for unremunerative portraiture, how- 
ever interesting the subject. The portrait 
of Burns required for the Edinburgh edition 
of his poems had been painted by Nasmyth 
during the first visit, so there was no business 
reason for painting another ; and as a matter 
of etiquette it would have been sailing pretty 
close to the wind to ask Nasmyth’s friend 
to sit to him, so soon after Nasmyth had 
painted him. 

There is no evidence that Raeburn was 
sensitive to beauty in poetry: his bias was 
towards mechanical and scientific subjects, 
and it probably never had entered his head, 
even if he met Burns, that he was more than 
an ephemeral wonder, made a fuss of for a 
short time before being relegated to oblivion ; 
indeed already on his way there, for the 
furore of admiration he experienced from 
notable people on his first visit was by no 
means repeated during the second. 

There are several reputed portraits of 
Burns by Raeburn, but only one has half- 
persuaded me to believe in it, and if it 
represents the poet it must have been painted 
before the first visit to Edinburgh, judging 
by the apparent age. It is of the period, 
it is on twilled canvas, it looks like a poet, 
and it is a skilful piece of work, much in the 


Influence on Contemporaries 117 


Raeburn manner ; but it does not specially 
concern us here. The fact that Raeburn 
in 1803 made a copy of the Nasmyth portrait 
for Cadell & Davies proves nothing either 
way. The Nasmyth portrait was the known 
one, these publishers wanted a copy of it, 
they commissioned Raeburn, with whom 
they had other dealings, to make it, and, 
with accustomed business promptitude, he 
did so. It seems odd that they did not 
apply to Nasmyth, but we have to remember 
that he had by this time given up portrait 
painting in favour of landscape. 

Nasmyth, then, was a friend of Raeburn : 
he was also a very near neighbour, for he 
built himself a house and studio at 47 York 
Place, from his own designs. Probably he 
also was the architect of Raeburn’s studio 
opposite, at No. 32, and he may have been 
connected with his friend’s building ventures 
at Stockbridge, for he was not only a painter 
but an architect of considerable skill. The 
beautiful little classic temple at St. Bernard’s 
Well was designed by Nasmyth, and he is 
said also to have taken a leading part in 
designing the famous Dean Bridge. These 
structures are both on the Water of Leith 
near the house in which Raeburn lived, who 
was concerned in the erection of the temple 
over the mineral well, for he and his brother 
were signatories to the feu contract for the 
site. Even more than Raeburn, Nasmyth 


18 Raeburn 


was one of the poterit influences that brought 
about in Edinburgh during the last quarter 
of the eighteenth century a remarkable 
increase in the number of good artists, and 
a public interest in the fine arts. His 
versatile genius included great skill in 
mechanics and engineering, which quality 
found fuller expression in the achievement 
of his famous son James, inventor of the 
steam hammer. This characteristic would 
be a great attraction to Raeburn, who 
seems to have dabbled in the same way. 
There were other portrait painters in 
Raeburn’s early days, now little more than 
names : among them George Willison (1741- 
1797), Alexander Reid (1747-1823) and John 
Thomas Seaton, a very vague figure : son it 
is said of Christopher Seaton, a gem engraver 
in London, an exhibitor, chiefly of portraits, 
in London from 1761 to 1777. In 1772 and 
1774 the exhibition catalogues gave the ad- 
dress of John Thomas Seaton as Edinburgh ; 
in1777,as East Indies. According to Bryan’s 
Dictionary of Painters he returned to 
Edinburgh, practised there successfully, and 
was still living in 1806. His name suggests 
a Scottish origin. Alexander Runciman has 
already been mentioned; Raeburn would 
almost certainly know him well, even if he 
did not attend the Trustees’ Academy. 
Mr. Caw says: ‘ Raeburn is said to have 
taken his tone of colour from Runciman’s 


Influence on Contemporaries 119 


portraits.’ As the latter was much pat- 
ronised by Sir John Clerk, contact between 
the two painters was almost inevitable. 
Another contemporary Raeburn knew well 
was Archibald Skirving (1749-1819), who 
executed excellent portraits in crayon. 
Raeburn painted a portrait of him for his 
own gallery. He also painted the land- 
scapist, the Rev. John Thomson, with whom 
he became intimate after the latter was 
appointed Minister of Duddingston, near 
Edinburgh, in 1805. Did Raeburn meet 
Turner? There is no record of a meeting, 
but it is probable that they came together 
when Turner paid his second visit to 
Edinburgh, in 1818, and was Thomson’s 
guest. 

While it is clear that Raeburn knew his 
brother artists in Edinburgh and never 
failed in his duty as the recognised head 
of the profession, it seems equally certain 
that, with a few exceptions, he found his 
intimate friends in other walks of life. 
Nasmyth was an exception, so were Thomson, 
and ‘ Grecian ’ Williams, a landscape painter 
of some power; and his generous friendliness 
to younger men is illustrated by incidents 
that have been mentioned relative to David 
Roberts, Andrew Robertson, and John 
Watson Gordon. 

The Royal Scottish Academy preserves 
several relics of Sir Henry, such as his 


120 Raeburn 


mahogany sitter’s chair, upholstered in 
dark red plush, his palette, the toddy ladle 
he is said to have made, his brass door- 
plate, and a light easel he gave to Edward 
Mitchell, an engraver. This last item illus- 
trates the painter’s ready, friendly help to 
other artists in practical matters, of which 
another instance is given by John Morrison 
in the Reminiscence from which I have 
already quoted: ‘When you are in Edin- 
burgh,’ he had said, ‘take your lodgings 
near York Place, and Robert will bring you 
up a palette and canvas at any time; or, 
having little else to do, he will grind you a 
set of colours; and any query you think 
necessary to put shall be readily answered. 
But indeed, a word goes in at one ear and 
out at the other ; so, if you will write down 
your query, I will write the answer under it.’ 
Morrison, acting on this suggestion, provided 
a book for his queries and Sir Henry’s 
answers. These reached the number of 
thirty-six. Sir Walter Scott asked Morrison 
to let him see the book, and, after reading 
its contents, said: ‘this will, some day, be 
worth a hundred pounds.’ Undoubtedly 
it would to-day have a considerable com- 
mercial value, and to the student its contents 
would be of intense interest as furnishing a 
better knowledge of Raeburn’s practical 
methods and ideas. Where is it now? 
Raeburn’s life, and the history of his 


Influence on Contemporaries Tar 


development as a painter, have been so 
successfully obscured by his earlier bio- 
graphers that it is exceptionally difficult to 
arrive at a satisfactory estimate of the man 
and his attitude towards life and art. He 
has left ample evidence that he possessed 
genius of very rare quality, but none what- 
ever that he had a due enthusiasm for his 
profession, or any interest in it beyond its 
value as a means of making money. The 
contrast between Raeburn and Reynolds 
and Gainsborough in this respect is remark- 
able. Raeburn painted portraits when 
people wanted, and were prepared to pay for 
them; but he never, so far as we know, 
attempted anything in any other branch of 
art, except that he is said to have dabbled in 
modelling during his stay at Rome. A 
Tassie medallion portrait of him is supposed 
to be his work. His backgrounds tell us 
that he had a keen perception of. the beautiful 
in landscape, and even suggest that he might 
have rivalled Gainsborough in this direction, 
but there is no record of the existence of a 
single landscape picture, study, or sketch by 
him. He could draw and compose as well 
as the Englishmen whenever he chose, and 
his management of lighting and grouping 
was admirable ; he had science sufficient to 
justify him in trying his hand at imaginative 
work, even ‘history painting,’ beloved of 
Sir Joshua, but no attempt was made. 


122 Raeburn 


Daily, more or less, he set out with the 
mechanical punctuality of a banker’s clerk 
for his studio, did his work there regularly 
and well like an honest craftsman, till the 
clock marked the time for ‘ down tools’ ; 
then he went home again and found his 
recreation in domestic joys or other pursuits 
more or less inartistic. It looks as if Rae- 
burn was that very unusual phenomenon— 
a man possessed of the rarest artistic gifts 
and at the same time indifferent to them: 
interested chiefly in the purposes, thoughts, 
and pursuits of ordinary people. 

Some explanation may perhaps be found 
in the conditions of his early years. A child- 
hood in the home of a yarn-boiler was 
succeeded by a boyhood in a charitable 
school, where the excellent educational 
ideal was to turn out youths ready to become 
industrious apprentices, and_ thereafter 
worthy tradesman citizens. The desired 
results were probably obtained with a better 
average of success than could be claimed 
for any present-day Board School. Young 
Raeburn, all ignorant of his special endow- 
ment, took to miniature making as a business 
proposition in aseemly tradesman-like spirit ; 
then, developing from that branch of por- 
traiture, he began to paint full-size portraits 
in oil, and to see his way clear to a more 
immediately profitable way of life than that 
of being a jeweller’s assistant, with no 


Influence on Contemporaries 123 


capital or influential friends to enable him 
to set up for himself in a trade, for which, 
more than most, money is requisite. 

At this stage there came into his life a 
handsome and well-to-do widow, with three 
children, and by twelve years his senior. 
The advantage to a struggling young man 
of taking such a woman as his wife is obvious : 
far more obvious than the truth of the story 
with which Cunningham laboured to make 
it seem the result of an overmastering attack 
of love at first sight. In such cases it is the 
woman who marries the man. 

That Mrs. Ann Edgar or Leslie was an 
estimable woman and an excellent wife to 
Henry Raeburn need not be doubted. It 
seems a sure inference, however, that by 
his marriage with her the young painter 
deliberately, though perhaps unwittingly, 
altered the course of his life ; adopting from 
her and her surroundings a wholly different 
outlook as regards his future. From being 
an unattached and struggling member of 
the trading class he was at once raised on 
approbation into that prouder social rank 
of the gentry who were landowners, and 
marked their superiority by tacking a 
territorial appendix to their names. James 
Leslie of Deanhaugh had married Ann, the 
daughter of Peter Edgar of Bridgelands. 
The ‘of’ in eighteenth-century Edinburgh 
was equivalent to the German ‘ von,’ without 


124 Raeburn 


which you are in Berlin more or less an 
‘untouchable.’ 

James Leslie’s widow yielded sufficiently 
to her good judgment in choosing Henry 
Raeburn for her husband, but it was not to 
be expected that she would descend to his 
station in life: the alternative was to raise 
him to hers. It has to be added that she 
did so successfully. Henry Raeburn of 
Deanhaugh, and afterwards of St. Bernard’s, 
was not only a handsome, accomplished, 
and charming person, but he filled his part 
with dignity and became wholly acceptable, 
not only to the best intellectual society of 
Edinburgh, but even to the ‘ ofs ’ into whose 
sacred circle he had intruded. To any one 
who knows what the exclusiveness of coteries 
was, even in the relatively lax days of Queen 
Victoria, in that ‘east-windy, west-endy 
city,’ it is a surprising thing that Raeburn 
succeeded so thoroughly, and a proof that 
he had very unusual genius as well as power 
of fascination. 

The ‘ ofs ’ not only accepted him, but they 
gave him of their substance, as one may 
easily see by looking over a list of his 
portraits. Necessarily Raeburn had to give 
something in exchange for the advantages 
he enjoyed: he gave up the life of the 
normal artist, with its hopes, fears, vicissi- 
tudes, and aspirations; lived comfortably 
under matriarchal rule, and cultivated 


Influence on Contemporaries 125 


genteel society ; pursued his profession, but 
as a business, not as the outlet of a fervent 
passion to express himself in the creation of 
beautiful art. Under such conditions it was 
only his exceptional genius that kept him 
from degenerating into a mediocrity. It is 
only fair to add it is arguable that to a man 
of his placid, evenly balanced, happy tem- 
perament, rare in artists, the absence of the 
goading incentive of necessity may have 
been a favourable influence : this is possible, 
but improbable. 

The great surplus of mental energy which 
might have been expended by Raeburn in 
trying to climb still higher in art, was worked 
off by him in various directions, notably in 
his extensive building projects, which he 
dreamed would enable him to attain to 
immortality as the creator of Raeburnville ; 
an enterprise which seems to have kept him 
busy in various ways, especially in litigation 
with speculative builders and other trouble- 
some people of that sort. He is said to have 
had a pretty taste for the law. The healthy 
man’s need for muscular toil was worked off 
by Raeburn on the golf-links, the archery 
ground, and in country excursions; and 
these recreations were not without result in 
the way of occasional commissions. Quasi- 
scientific hobbies interested him: the 
eighteenth century being devoid of the joys 
of listening-in, gramophones, and cross-word 


126 Raeburn 


puzzles, had to sharpen its intellect on such 
problems as the perpetual motion and 
squaring the circle. On the whole, Raeburn 
undoubtedly had an exceptionally conifort- 
able life, with only one disastrous break, 
when, as a result of taking risks in order to 
get rich quicker, he lost all that he had 
accumulated, and became bankrupt. A 
remarkable thing about that episode is that 
although in 1808 he bewailed to a friend 
that he had lost everything (nearly £17,000), 
he was able in 1809 to buy St. Bernard’s. 
In accumulating money Raeburn’s chief 
object was probably one appropriate to the 
ideas of the class into which he had entered 
by way of marriage: to found a family 
which could take its place among the ‘ ofs.’ 
Any hope he may have had of a continuation 
of his genius in a son were defeated by the 
death of Peter, of whom, according to Dr. 
John Brown, ‘ his father used to say that if 
he had lived he would have far surpassed him.’ 
Henry showed no trace of artistic bias, 
and his venture as a merchant disclosed no 
genius in that direction. Either with money 
in land or the funds, however, the young 
man was capable of gracing society as a 
gentleman, so an endowment had to be 
provided. Henry dutifully accepted this 
feather-bed conception of his destiny ; and, 
after his father’s death, was a creditable 
Raeburn of St. Bernard’s until, on acquiring 


Influence on Contemporaries 127 


a property in the country, he became Rae- 
burn of Charlesfield and a Justice of the 
Peace for the County: an undistinguished 
but doubtless useful member of the com- 
munity. He was thoroughly imbued with 
his mother’s class ideas, and it was probably 
with him that the story about descent from 
Border Raeburns originated, or at any rate 
began to be believed in as fact: Sir Henry, 
knowing about Scott of Raeburn, Sir Walter’s 
relative, may have joked on the subject. 
There is no evidence, however, that he made 
any claim to armorial bearings, and the 
contrary is proved by the grant of arms to 
his son in 1841. 

Allan Cunningham naturally went to this 
son for help in preparing his Life of Sir 
Henry, and from him received a good deal 
of the material which he worked up with 
the facility of a ready writer who lacked any 
instinct for careful sifting of fact from fiction. 
Hence the wealth of misinformation about 
Raeburn which is now so difficult to cope 
with. W. R. Andrew, half a century later, 
showing no genius, though a barrister, for 
weighing evidence, did little more than copy 
Cunningham. Following him, Sir Walter 
Armstrong, though a better writer and a 
competent art critic, accepted too readily 
some of the established errors. Later, Mr. 
James L. Caw and Mr. James Greig have 
worked in a more critical spirit, and made 


KR 


128 Raeburn 


valuable amendments and additions; and 
a tribute of praise is due also to the labours 
of Mr. Edward Pinnington, whose account of 
the painter is sympathetic, understanding, 
and charmingly written. The definitive Life 
of Raeburn is, however, still to come. The 
writer of it will, I hope, find some help in 
the present narrative, which embodies a 
good deal of new material; in providing 
which I have preferred research to imagina- 
tion, even at the risk that Raeburn’s friend, 
Sir Walter Scott, was thinking of when he 
wrote in his Journal: ‘ Better a superficial 
book, which brings well and _ strikingly 
together the known and acknowledged facts, 
than a dull, boring narrative, pausing to see 
further into a millstone at every moment 
than the nature of the millstone admits.’ 


CHAPTER V. 
THE QUALITY OF THE ARTIST. 


N attempt to trace the growth of 
A Raeburn’s powers as a painter is at 
the outset defeated by the scarcity of 
evidence as to the dates of his works. It 
seems probable that he kept a record of his 
commissions, but that it has disappeared. 
John Dickie, W.S., who was his legal adviser, 
died in 1839, and it does not seem possible to 
trace what became of the documents which 
were entrusted to him or his brother, H. D. 
Dickie, Secretary of the Caledonian Insurance 
Company. We find the latter, writing on 
the 3rd October, 1823, to the Earl of Hard- 
wicke: “Mr. Raeburn has put into my 
hands the books of the late Sir Henry 
Raeburn, in order to ascertain the sums due 
to him.’ So there were books. 

In the Connoisseur list of Raeburn’s 
paintings dates are attached to about 150, 
but these are for the most part conjectural, 
and to the years between 1776, when the 
Chalmers of Pittencrieff was undoubtedly 
painted, and 1790, only two portraits are 
assigned. In 1790 Raeburn was in full 

129 


I30 Raeburn 


possession of his powers, if we accept as 
evidence the pictures ascribed to that year, 
especially those of Siv John and Lady Clerk, 
and Siv John Sinclair: both masterpieces. 
But the danger of relying upon any opinion, 
even when it is based upon careful conjecture 
by expert students, is shown by the fact that 
in the monograph on Raeburn by Mr. James 
Greig, which forms part of the Connoisseur 
volume, the Sinclair portrait is assigned to 
1796, and that of Sir John Clerk and Wife 
is classed among those that date before 
1790. Were it necessary it would be easy 
to multiply instances of this kind, gathered 
from writers on Raeburn, to show how much 
we are groping in the dark on the subject. 
The difficulty is accentuated by the 
unusual continuity of Raeburn’s work, the 
absence of marked changes in it, the steady, 
quiet growth from beginning to end of his 
career. This was, no doubt, due to his 
- intense individuality. His style grew as a 
tree grows : it seems never to have interested 
him to know how a thing was done by other 
painters ; he was content with such improve- 
ment as came from continued effort to see, 
and to reveal on canvas the uttermost 
possible in regard to the subject before him. 
Evidence of grafts such as occur in the work 
of other portraitists—grafts from the style 
of someone else—are practically not to be 
found in that of Raeburn. Mr. Greig traced 


In.the possession of Sir William Raeburn 
LADY INGLIS 


SIR HENRY RAEBURN 


(face p. 130) 








The Quality of the Artist 131 


a resemblance to the style of Largilliére in 
one portrait of a lady (Lady Inglis), and 
inferred that it might have been painted 
under temporary French influence in Rome. 
Mr. Caw thought that the Lord President 
Dundas, painted soon after the Rome period, 
betrayed reference to the Julius II of 
Raphael (at Florence), Armstrong detected 
‘a strong flavour of Sir Joshua,’ after the 
return from Rome, John Burnet supposed 
that the Professor Robison (an outstanding 
example of bold and original craftsmanship) 
was the result of Raeburn’s seeing some 
picture by Velasquez in the collection of the 
Earl of Lauderdale. Occasionally, in por- 
traits of fair women, such as the Mrs. Scott 
Moncneff, and the Mrs. Wiliam Urquhart, 
a reference to the vision of Lely or Lawrence 
may be imagined: if there be any, which I 
doubt, it is so superficial and slight as to be 
negligible as a quality when set against the 
presence of excellencies which these painters 
lack, especially the power to express along 
with and without deducting from a woman’s 
beauty a penetrating statement of her 
temperament and character. 

Raeburn, from first to last, was essentially 
self-contained, and of such innate strength 
and self-sufficiency that he had no need for 
external influence, beyond that inevitable 
minimum which must enter into all human 
work as a result of the impalpable effect of 


132 Raeburn 


surroundings. It may be that now and 
then Raeburn consciously set himself to paint — 
a portrait in the manner or spirit of one 
that he admired: a species of serious 
caricature (if one may use the word out of 
its accepted meaning) similar to Millais’ 
well-known piece of bravura, A Souvenir of 
Velasquez. But the manner of no man, 
however great, suited Raeburn so well as 
that which he had thought and worked out 
for himself, and which at the end of more 
than half a century after his choice of art 
as his business, was at its fullest and finest 
expression, rich in promise of further great 
achievement, when the sudden call came. 

‘Broadly considered,’ says Mr. Caw, 
‘Raeburn’s art shows no marked periods.’ 
This in a few words sums up the matter. 
When, if ever, we are put in possession of 
certain information as to the dates of 
Raeburn’s pictures it will be time enough 
to set to work upon an elaborate comparison 
and analysis, with a view to a study of the 
growth and variation of his technical 
methods. At present it is prudent to be 
content with something less. 

We know that from the very beginning 
his essential merit as a portraitist was 
inherent. The miniature of Deuchar, said 
to have been his second attempt, though 
obviously the work of an inexperienced 
hand, is all alive, and gives a clear impression 


The Quality of the Artist 133 


of the man limned: clearer, I think, than 
the much more expert and beautiful pencil 
miniature by Brown which Miss Deuchar 
also possesses. In the Chalmers of Pitten- 
crief{ portrait we have the essentials of one 
of Raeburn’s schemes for a full-length 
picture, used throughout his career. There 
may be doubts about the legs, the chair is 
certainly out of drawing, and though the 
composition is well managed it conveys an 
impression that it was laboured, as it doubt- 
less was, for the painter was only twenty 
years of age and but recently accustomed 
to express himself on two or three inches of 
ivory. The glimpse of landscape seen 
through a window to the left is a recurrent 
device in Raeburn’s work: for instance, in 
the seated portrait of The Hon. Henry 
Erskine. The brushwork has no trace of the 
miniature method: the characteristic 
“square” touch, which reached its fullest 
expression in the Professor Robison, is 
already in use. 

The Mrs. Ferguson of Ratth, with her 
Children, which it is generally agreed is an 
early work (c. 1780), shows a great advance 
on the Chalmers of Pittencrieff in the grace 
and ease of the composition and the charm 
of the portraiture. The landscape setting 
is cleverly composed, but too obviously 
lowered in its lighting for the purpose of 
giving due prominence to the figures: even 


134 Raeburn 


the dog which the boy holds by a handker- 
chief is out of the lighting. Dr. W. D. 
McKay, in his Scottish School of Painting, 
says of this and the more or less contemporary 
picture of the lady’s husband and third son : 
‘already . . . we have a manner of seeing 
and painting unlike that of any of his 
Scottish forerunners. In these earliest can- 
vases one finds the direct painting, the broad 
flat surfaces, and the precise square touch— 
afterwards such a weapon for the seizure of 
the character—in the management of the 
narrow shadows and the modelling of the 
features. As yet he avoids effects.’ There 
follows much more subtle and wise criticism 
of details, for which the curious reader may 
be referred to the book. 

Any shortcomings in these early works 
that are apparent to us as compared with 
the achievement of the ultimate Raeburn, 
were doubtless even more obvious to the 
painter, keenly alive to what he felt he had 
it in him to do. So he went to Rome. 
Among the early achievements of his studio 
after his return we find examples again in 
the Kilrie collection which suffice to justify 
his expedition. That fascinating boy picture 
of William Ferguson of Kilvie is the work of 
a full-grown craftsman, who had mastered 
the handling of light in portraiture. The 
wonder is that a portrait so unconventional 
and striking was accepted. The Fergusons 


The Quality of the Artist 135 


must have been unusually intelligent patrons. 
If so, they would have another agreeable 
shock of surprise on receiving the Szv Ronald 
and Robert Ferguson, practising archery 
which is at once masterly and unconventional 
in arrangement. It is of interest to notice 
that in a somewhat later full-length of Sir 
Ronald Ferguson with gun and dog, the 
landscape setting is almost identical with 
that of the picture of Mrs. Ferguson with her 
children. Probably it was an actual scene 
observed at Raith. But how much more 
cleverly is the relation managed between the 
figure and the background. Dr. McKay 
notes of this: ‘both face and figure are 
modelled with a fuller brush and more graphic 
touch. There is less of the flatness of the 
mosaic, and the accessories are executed with 
the increasing ease and fluency which come 
of experience.’ 

Here we have an early example of 
Raeburn’s plan of painting a man ‘in his 
habit as he lived,’ which resulted in a 
number of his most original and masterly 
productions: the Dr. Patrick Spens as an 
archer, Siv John Sinclaiy arrayed in a 
uniform, the splendours of which excel the 
utmost inventions of the ‘ twopence- 
coloured’ draughtsmen employed by Skelt, 
Lieutenant Colonel McMurdo as a fisherman, 
The Glengarry chieftain posing with his 
noblest air in his native halls, and the 


136 Raeburn 


inimitable Macnab, even more gorgeous and 
spectacular than any of them, looking 
defiance at all the world, with his foot upon 
his native heath. In the hands of almost 
any other painter, however great, none of 
these things would have been possible : they 
would have resulted in creations as comical 
as most of the Georgian presentments of 
Generals and Admirals striking attitudes, 
surrounded by cannons, ships, forts, smoke, 
and other appropriate emblems of their 
trade. Raeburn intuitively saw that he 
could best realise his penetrating perception 
of a subject’s character at its most typical 
expression by showing him at play, his whole . 
nature engrossed in the pastime; or, if a 
Highlander, warmed to his utmost expressive- 
ness by sentiments of warlike pride. The 
Sir Ronald Ferguson is all the better portrait 
because the moment immortalised is one of 
intense preoccupation with the game at 
which both gun and dog point. Spens is 
seen transfigured by his pastime to a truer 
self than was ever disclosed to patients or 
dinner comrades ; its veracity is such that 
the mind of the spectator is not even dis- 
tracted by the portentous emblematical 
thistle in the foreground. Sinclair, in spite 
of all his ‘ braws’ is handsome, majestic, 
impressive,—a withering commentary on 
Farington’s description of him as ‘a dirty 
Scotsman.” McMurdo, who as a mere 


The Quality of the Artist 137 


military officer would have been of little 
interest, becomes an ever fresh source of 
pleasure as a fisherman, painted with true 
zest by a brother disciple of Izaak Walton, 
seated in entire content and enjoyment in 
one of the most charmingly romantic settings 
devised by Raeburn. Glengarry’s spectacu- 
lar attitude is made subordinate and con- 
tributory to the complete statement of 
character, and the skilful scheme of lighting. 
And the rugged, fierce, untamed Macnab is 
so perfect a realisation of a grand Gaelic type 
that it is worthy of the criticism attributed 
to Sir Thomas Lawrence—(where did he 
see it ?)—that it is the best representation 
of a human being he had ever seen. That is 
what one felt on finding it again at Wembley 
in 1924, hanging among other choice ex- 
amples of the chief British masters. The 
picture well seen is even more impressive 
than the great price that was recently paid 
for it; though that, no doubt, is for some 
the most convincing proof of its excellence. 

In all these portraits, as in many others, 
the commanding merit is the vivid statement 
of the subject’s appearance, combined with 
a revelation of his or her mind by the magic 
of subtle observation. Raeburn’s portraits 
never, it is said, failed to be convincing 
likenesses at a period when the same could 
not be said of all other painters’ work. 
Reynolds was notoriously uncertain in this 


138 Raeburn 


respect. Indeed it may be doubted it any 
other British painter was over careful about 
it before the discipline of the camera wiped 
out the minor men, and put the others on 
their mettle. A photographic portrait is 
apt to be soulless, but, if the work of a 
competent operator, it is at least a likeness. 
Raeburn’s powers of observation were so 
perfect, and were so admirably served by a 
hand that never faltered—needing no mahl- 
stick or the guidance of a charcoal outline— 
that he could express exactly in two dimen- 
sions the physical appearance before him, 
and at the same time keep his mind detached 
for keen observation of character and tem- 
perament, aiding this by conversation that 
tended to provoke self-revelation. 

For Raeburn the painting of the head was 
the easiest part of his task : not that he was 
less capable of reproducing the rest, but that 
was more nearly mechanical, and therefore 
less interesting. He seldom failed in any 
detail of importance, and spared no pains 
to make all his design, however complex, 
contributory to the main purpose. Thus, 
in his Adam Rolland of Gask, one can see 
that, after he had been at the pains to paint 
a vase of flowers on the table, he came to 
the conclusion that it was undesirable, and 
forthwith painted it out. The six great 
full-lengths above referred to are full of 
various detail, all evidently painted with 


The Quality of the Artist 139 


due attention to the golden rule laid down by 
Byres of Tonley ; but by fine management 
of light, tone, and colour, nothing is ever 
allowed to sound a disturbing note in the 
harmony of the composition. 

Illustrative of Raeburn’s mastery in 
vision and representation is the certainty 
with which he introduced animals, although 
he did not paint them often. His dogs and 
horses are always excellent, often super- 
excellent. It is remarkable that a detail 
he was apt to fail in was the hands. These 
he could paint, and often did paint exceed- 
ingly well, and with excellent effect in the 
composition ; especially when ancillary to 
his design, as in the group of The Macdonald 
Children; but he did not like them, was 
adroit in hiding them, and when they were 
Shown they sometimes show remarkable 
carelessness: at times, in this respect he 
could almost sink to the level of Goya. 

Single-minded devotion to the essential 
duty of faithful portraiture, to the exclusion 
of everything else, was with Raeburn a 
first principle. He was a great painter, but 
his greatness found no expression in any 
other direction. As a result he created a 
gallery of memorable, ever fresh and vital, 
portraits of contemporary Scottish people. 
It has been said of him that he was peculiarly 
fortunate in having to practise his art in a 
city which was especially rich in strong 


140 Raeburn 


types of humanity ; and part of the credit 
due to his excellence is thus transferred to 
his sitters. This seems to be a fallacy. 
England in his day was equally rich in men 
and women of outstanding character and 
appearance : Edinburgh to-day could prob- 
ably muster just as strong a selection of 
distinguished types of humanity ; certainly 
it could have done so in the later Victorian 
days, when I knew it well. The remarkable 
character of Raeburn’s portraits was not 
due to his sitters, but to his power of seeing 
and representing them, with a fulness and 
certainty only paralleled by Hals, Moroni, 
and Velasquez. 

According to Alexander Fraser, R.S.A., 
Raeburn’s range of pigments was limited 
and simple : vermilion, raw sienna (or yellow 
ochre), Prussian blue, burnt Sienna, ivory 
black, crimson lake, and white. His medium 
was linseed oil, mixed with mastic varnish 
and sugar of lead: he called it ‘ Gumption,’ 
which is Scotch for common sense. All his 
materials, as we learn from Morrison, were 
prepared by his servant under his direction, 
not bought from acolour-man. He generally, 
if not always, used a twilled canvas. As a 
result of sound painting with a small range 
of safe colours, almost all Raeburn’s pictures 
now, though from a century to a century 
and a half old, are unfaded and in excellent 
condition, save where they have suffered 


The Quality of the Aritst I4I 


from careless keeping or bad varnish. The 
state of the Mrs. Scott Moncrieff before it 
was restored suggested that in it Raeburn 
might have used one of the bituminous 
pigments that came into vogue and worked 
so much mischief in and after his day. 
That, however, so far as my opportunities 
for observation have served, seems to be an 
exceptional case. 

So much has been written on the subject 
of the painter’s ‘square touch’ and its 
supposed development and eventual modifica- 
tion in favour of subtler brushing, that it 
is unnecessary to revert to it. The chief 
value of such analytical study is in helping 
to form conjectures as to the dates of the 
pictures, and it is not a very certain guide, 
for the handling of a master varies according 
to the task in hand; and the marked 
differences between, say, the Lord Newton, 
and the James Wardrop of Torbanehill do 
not necessarily imply a long distance of 
time between the two pictures. What 
matters, after all, in regard to such pictures 
is not when and how they were painted, but 
what they are. Both are masterpieces in 
the smaller, simpler style of portrait, in 
which Raeburn, undisturbed by accessories, 
put his whole strength into making relatively 
immortal the mortal beings sitting to him. 
Newton died a dozen years before him, but 
he is still vividly alive in this picture so 


142 Raeburn 


deftly described by Dr. John Brown: ‘ full- 
blooded, full-brained, taurine with potential 
vigour. His head is painted with a Rabe- 
laisian richness; you cannot but believe 
when you look at the vast countenance the 
tales of his feats in thinking and in drinking, 
and in general capacity of body and mind.’ 

The Wardrop, R. L. Stevenson thought 
a picture ‘which you might palm off upon 
most laymen as a Rembrandt.’ This was 
a fantastic way of saying what is very true, 
that it is differentiated technically from 
almost all other Raeburn portraits. It is 
the top of his achievement in simple male 
portraiture, and all Raeburn lovers must 
deplore the fact that it is going or gone to 
the antipodes. When it hung for a short 
time in the National Gallery, after Mr. 
Rinder had bought it for Melbourne under 
the Felton Bequest, one felt its presence 
there a silent protest against obsession for 
continental old masters on the part of the 
Trustees so great that they let pass the 
opportunity of securing the masterpiece of 
a native painter, who is as yet deplorably 
under-represented in the English national 
collection. The only grain of comfort is 
that the picture, though exiled, will be in a 
Dominion Gallery. 

Other outstanding examples of single 
portraits which illustrate the force and range 
of Raeburn’s genius are the early Nez Gow, 


The Melbourne Art Gallery 
JAMES WARDROP OF TORBANE HILL 


SIR HENRY RAEBURN 


(face p. 142) 








The Quality of the Artist 143 


Henry Mackenze, Dr. Adam, Lord Braxfield, 
Francis Horner, John Clerk (afterwards 
Lord Eldin), Byres of Tonley, John Wauchope, 
and, last, but by no means least as regards 
either subject or achievement, the Montagu 
Sir Walter Scott, of 1822. 

R. L. Stevenson found fault with Raeburn 
in regard to his portraits of young women, 
which he pronounced ‘by no means of the 
same order of merit’ as his other portraits. 
Here it seems necessary to join issue with 
R.L.S., for it is not possible to agree with 
him that ‘they do not seem to be made of 
good flesh and blood. They are not painted 
in rich and unctuous tones. They are dry 
and diaphanous. . . . In all these pretty 
faces you miss character, you miss fire, you 
miss that spice of the devil which is worth 
all the prettiness in the world ; and what is 
worst of all you miss sex. His young ladies 
are not womanly to nearly the same degree 
as his men are masculine ; they are so in a 
negative sense ; in short, they are the typical 
young ladies of the male novelist.’ 

It may be allowed at once that the student 
of femininity who comes to the study of 
Raeburn’s women fresh from enjoyment of 
ladies limned by, let us say, Greuze, Boucher, 
Nattier and Fragonard, must find something 
wanting : he may even do so when comparing 
them with some of the fair damsels of Rae- 
burn’s English contemporaries. These latter 


LR 


144 Raeburn 


were accustomed to devote spare time to 
portraiture of ladies of the theatre, and other 
ladies who did not even enjoy the Bohemian 
respectability of the stage. Demi-mondaines 
are to be found in the lists of pictures 
exhibited by Reynolds and Gainsborough, 
and every one knows of Romney’s obsession 
by the charms of Emma Hart, which inspired 
him into something approaching genius. 
Mr. Francis Watt, writing of Raeburn, 
remarks: ‘it has been said of a greater 
than he that the one thing wanting to raise 
his genius into the highest possible sphere 
was the chastening of a great sorrow, or the 
excitement of a great passion.’ Sorrow 
and trouble came to him as they do to every 
one, though his share was a relatively small 
one. But the great passion almost certainly 
never entered into his life, nor do we find 
in his art the slightest evidence that he was 
ever influenced by amatory sentiment. 
Certainly that quality is lacking, but is that 
to be reckoned a fault? Raeburn may fail 
in the expression of sensuous charm, though 
I think not, but that rather enhances the 
value of his portraits of fair young contem- 
poraries. He painted them as he painted 
men, unflinchingly representing faces as he 
saw them, without any enhancement by 
excusable artistic touches, and made them 
expressive of mind as he sensed it. If some- 
thing seems to be lacking, the blame must be 


es 


The Quality of the Artist 145 


charged to the account of the very artificial, 
and (to us) unnatural position in life of the 
Georgian young woman of the better classes, 
whose intellects were as carefully repressed 
as her liberties were restricted. We have 
no surer evidence of what she was and what 
she lacked than is supplied by Raeburn’s 
portraits. 

His power of expression where his personal 
interest was involved may be best seen in 
the portrait of his wife. It reveals to us 
that though she was middle-aged she was a 
woman he loved and admired. With every 
touch of the brush he tells us: ‘In this 
woman I see a disposition full of sweetness 
and excellence, and a mind that I can 
reverence.’ So great is his art that he has 
even given the picture some of the force of 
attraction the original had for himself; a 
glamour that makes one linger and look 
again. Without beauty it fascinates. 

I have already quoted a description of 
the portrait of a step-daughter for whom he 
had fatherly affection. However latent 
Raeburn’s capacity for passion may have 
been, there is no doubt as to his warmth of 
family affection if we turn to such pictures 
as the Boy with a Rabbit, the Leshe Boy, 
and Henry Raeburn on a Pony. But always 
his pictures of children are admirable and 
lovingly painted. 

Reverting to the ladies, I advance as 


146 Raeburn 


evidence in contravention of Stevenson’s 
opinion the portraits of Lady Drummond of 
Hawthornden, Mrs. Boswall of Blackadder 
(a very late work), Lady Suttie and her two 
winsome daughters, Mrs. Campbell of Possil, 
Mrs. Urquhart, Lady Carmichael, Mrs. 
Lauzun, Mrs. Scott Moncrieff, The Hon. Mrs. 
Wharton, and The Hon. Mrs. Spiers. Of 
middle-aged ladies who, thanks to Raeburn’s 
genius, have power to charm there is no lack, 
and his old women are even finer. Let it 
suffice to name the Mrs. James Campbell, 
which ranks beside the Wardrop at the 
summit of his achievement. 

How completely Raeburn created for us a 
gallery of the female sex of the better classes 
as it existed in Scotland before and after the 
beginning of the nineteenth century might 
be shown by illustrating the Seven Ages of 
Woman, with reproductions of paintings by 
him. This sequence I would begin with 
his Helen Stirling, an exquisite and delightful 
little girl, who looks out at one with just the 
vacant, happy expression of a young child. 
The Portrait of a Young Girl, seated, and 
leaning on a portfolio would stand for the 
second age, and for the third we could not 
choose better than Miss Janet Sutive, or her 
sister, Margaret. Next in order, for the 
fourth stage of life, there is none better than 
Mrs. Campbell of Possil, but there is some- 
thing to be said also for Lady Hume Campbell 


The Quality of the Artist 147 


of Marchmont, looking with fond delight at 
her infant son; also we must not overlook 
that very fine recent addition to the Glasgow 
Collection: Mr. and Mrs. Robert Campbell, 
of Katze, which would easily hold its own 
if hung beside Gainsborough’s Morning 
Walk. The fifth age might well be allotted 
to Mrs. Elizabeth Ord, wife of Lord 
Braxfield, haughty and austere; or Lady 
Muller of Glenlee. Either dear Mrs. Campbell 
of Park or Mrs. James Campbell would be 
perfect for the sixth age, and a sort of con- 
necting link with the seventh is Mrs. Pitcairn, 
sitting with an amazing Sunday cap on her 
head, looking at nothing, and gently smiling 
at nobody. For the last stage of all we have 
poor old Lady Hamilton apparently in her 
dotage: an apathetic and _ expressionless 
invalid, propped up in her chair, ear-trumpet 
in hand, and looking past doubt ‘ sans teeth, 
sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.’ 

It is obvious that an equally striking and 
picturesque sequence illustrating the Seven 
Ages of Man might be compiled from Rae- 
burn’s paintings ; it would be less easy to 
construct similar sequences from the works 
of any other painter of portraits in or before 
his time. Of each sitter who came to him 
he was able to make a convincingly true 
record, thanks to the intense wisdom that 
looked through his lustrous eyes; not only 
a likeness of the physical appearance, but 


148 Raeburn 


also a revealing record of the character and 
spirit. Neither age nor sex made a differ- 
ence: the flower-like charm of childhood, 
the blooming grace of youth, the lusty vigour 
and beauty of early maturity, the strength 
and force of full manhood, the dignity of 
later years, and the pathetic beauty of age: 
all were recorded by him with the complete- 
ness possible to a sure hand and eye, guided 
by rare knowledge and power of vision. 
Raeburn may not have been a great artist 
in the wider sense, because of his limited 
range; but by concentration on a single 
branch of the painter’s craft he undoubtedly 
became one of the greatest of portrait 
painters. 


APPENDIX I. 
BIBLIOGRAPHY AND AUTHORITIES. 


Edinburgh Directories, v.y. 1773-1830. 
Catalogues of Royal Academy Exhibitions, 1792- 
1823. 

The Scots Magazine, 1808-1826. 

Elogiorum Sepulchralium Edinensium  LDelectus, 
A. Duncan, Senr., M.D. 1815. 

The British Gallery of Contemporary Portraits. 
2 vols. 1822. 

Memoirs of George Heriot . . . With a historical 
account of the Hospital founded by him in 
Edinburgh. 1822. 

The European Magazine, November, 1823. 

The Gentleman’s Magazine, November, 1823. 

The Annual Register, 1824. . 

A Tribute of Regard to the Memory of Sir Henry 
Raeburn, R.A. By Andrew Duncan. 1824. 
The Life and Correspondence of Sir Thomas Lawrence. 
By D. E. Williams (B. R. Haydon’s annotated 

copy in the British Museum). 1831. 

The National Portrait Gallery . . . With Memoirs 
by W. Jerdan. 1832. 

Memoirs of the Life of Sir Walter Scott. By J. G. 
Lockhart. 7 vols. 1837. 

A Bibliographical, Antiquarian, and Picturesque 
Tour in the Northern Counties of England and in 
Scotland. By the Rev. Thomas Frognall Dibdin, 
DD; 2) vols. . 1635, 


149 


150 Appendix I 


The Popular Scottish Biography. By Wm. Anderson. 
1842. 

Tait’s Edinburgh Magazine. 1843. 

The Life of Sir David Wilkie. By Allan Cunning- 
ham. 1843. 

The Life of B. R. Haydon from his Autobiography 
and Journals. By Tom Taylor. 1853. 

A Century of Painters of the English School. By 
R. & S. Redgrave. 2 vols. 1866. 

The Life of David Roberts, R.A. Compiled from 
his. journals, and other sources. By James 
Ballantine. 1866. 

Historical Records of the Family of Leslie, from 1067 
to 1868. By Colonel C. Leslie, K.H. 3 vols. 
1869. 

History of George Heriot’s Hospital. By Wm. 
Steven, D.D., third edition revised and enlarged 
by F. L. Bedford, LL.D. 1872. 

An Account of the surname Edgar. By J. H. 
Lawrence-Archer. 1873. 

A Biographical Dictionary of Eminent Scotsmen. 
By R. Chambers, revised by Thomas Thomson. 
Voli 3: 1875. 

Benjamin Robert Haydon: Correspondence and 
Table Talk. With Memoir by his son F. W. 
Haydon. 2 vols. 1876. 

Christopher North : A Memoir of John Wilson. 
By his daughter Mrs. Gordon. New edition 
(first edition, 1862). 1879. 

The Lives of the Most Eminent British Painters. 
By Allan Cunningham. Revised edition, by 
Mrs. C. Heaton. 3 vols. (first edition, 1833). 
1879. 

Virginibus Puerisyue and other Papers. By R. L. 
Stevenson. 1881. 

John Leech and other Papers. By John Brown 
M.D., &c. 2nd edition. 1882. 


Appendix I 151 


James Nasmyth, Engineer: An Autobiography. 
Edited by Samuel Smiles. 1883. 


British Mezzotint Portraits. By John Chaloner 
Smith, B.A. 1884. 


Life of Sir Henry Raeburn. By his great-grandson, 
William Raeburn Andrew, M.A., Oxon. 2nd 
edition (first edition, 1886). 1894. 


Historical Memorials and Reminiscences of Stock- 
bridge, &c. By Cumberland Hill. 2nd edition, 
enlarged (first edition, 1874). 1887. 


Scottish Painters: A Critical Study. By Walter 
Armstrong, B.A., Oxon. 1888. 


Art in Scotland: Its Origin and Progress. By 
Robert Brydall. 1889. 


The Journal of Sir Walter Scott, 1825-32. From 
the original MS. 1890. 


An Ordinary of Arms contained in the Public Register 
of all Arms and Bearings in Scotland. By Sir 
James Balfour Paul. 1893. 


Familiar Letters of Sir Walter Scott. 2 vols. 1894. 


John Thomson of Duddingston, Pastor and Painter. 
By Wm. Baird, F.S.A., Scotland. 1895. 


Letters and Papers of Alexander Andrew Robertson, 
A.M. Edited by Emily Robertson. 2nd edition 
(first dated 1895). 1897. 

Publications of the Scottish Record Society, v.y. 
1898-1922. I0 vols. 

Caledonian Jottings for Private Circulation (Cale- 
donian Insce. Co.). Igo00. 

Sir Henry Raeburn. By Sir Walter Armstrong, 
with an Introduction by R. A. M. Stevenson, 
and a biographical and descriptive Catalogue 
by J. L. Caw. Igor. 

Views and Reviews: Essays in Appreciation. By 
W.E. Henley. 1902. 


152 Appendix I 


Bryan’s Dictionary of Painters and Engravers. 
New edition. Edited by G.C. Williamson, Litt. D. 
1904. 

Sir Henry Raeburn, R.A. By Edward Pinnington. 
1904. 

Caledonian Insurance Company: History of One 
Hundred Years (1805-1905). 1905. 

The Royal Academy of Arts: A Complete Dictionary 
of Contributors from 1769 to 1804. By Algernon 
Graves. Vol. 6. 1906. 

Chambers’ Encyclopedia. Vol. 8. 1906. 

The Scottish School of Painting. By William D. 
McKay, R.S.A. 1906. 

Nineteenth Century Mezzotinters : Charles Turner. 
By Alfred Whitman. 1907. 

Sir Henry Raeburn (Newnes). Memoir by R. S. 
Clouston. 1907. 

Scottish Painting, Past and Present. By James L. 
Caw. 1908. 

The Masterpieces of Raeburn: Sixty Reproductions. 
1908. 

Catalogue of Engraved British Portraits preserved 
in the Department of Prints and Drawings in the 
British Museum. By F. O’Donoghue, F.S.A. 
5 vols. 1908-1922. 

The Studio, No. 179, February 18. 1908. 

Memorials of his Time. By Henry Cockburn. 
New edition. 1909. 

Dictionary of National Biography. Vol. 16. Reprint 
1909. 

The National Gallery: One Hundred Plates in 
Colour. 1909. 

Masterpieces in Colour: Raeburn. By James L. 
Caw. 1909. 

Portraits by Sir Henry Raeburn, with an Introductory 
Essay. By James L. Caw. 1909. 


Appendix I 153 


British Portrait Painting to the Opening of the Nine- 
‘teenth Century. By M. H. Spielmann, F.S.A. 
2 vols. IgI0. 


A History of Painting. By Haldane Macfall, with 
a Preface by Frank Brangwyn. 8 vols. 1911. 


Sir Henry Raeburn, R.A., his Life and Work, with a 
Catalogue of his Pictures. By James Greig. 
FO11. 

The Royal Scottish Academy, 1826-1916 : A Complete 
List of the Exhibited Works by Raeburn, and by 
Academicians, Associates, and Hon. Members. By 
Frank Rinder, with a Historical Narrative of the 
Origin and Development of the R.S.A., by W. D. 
McKay, R.S.A. 1917. 

John Thomson of Duddingston, Landscape Painter. 
By R. W. Napier, F.R.S. 1919. 

A Collection of Engravings after Raeburn, with a 
Record and Appreciation. By John Mallett. 1920. 

The Farington Diary. Vol. 1. 1922. 

Henry Raeburn, 1756-1823. By T. C. F. Brotchie. 
1924. 

Also Exhibition Catalogues, Magazines, News- 
papers, Edinburgh Directories, Biographical 
Dictionaries, Encyclopedias, etc., referred to in 
the text. 





APPENDIX II. 


List oF PICTURES BY SIR HENRY RAEBURN 
IN BRITISH GALLERIES OPEN TO THE PUBLIC 


Lonpon, THE NATIONAL GALLERY. 


Miss Mary Hepburn (934in. by 59in.). 

Lieut. Colonel Bryce McMurdo (9qin. by 58in.). 
Mrs. H. W. Lauzun (294in. by 24fin.). - 

Henry Dundas, Viscount Melville (30in. by 25in.). 
Miss Forbes (29}in. by 24in.). 

Lady Dalrymple (Tate Gallery) (29}in. by 24}in.). 


LONDON, THE NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY. 


John Home (2gin. by 24in.). 

Francis Horner, M.P. (494in. by 394in.). 

Henry Mackenzie (293in. by 24#in.). 

John Playfair, F.R.S. (49?in. by 394in.). 

Sir John Sinclair of Ulbster, Bart., LL.D. 
(484in. by 38#in.). 

Hugh Williams (z94in. by 24}in.). 


Lonpon, THE VICTORIA AND ALBERT MUSEUM. 


The Rev. Alex. Dyce, when a boy (29}in. by 
24%in.). 

Mr. Hobson, of Markfield (513in. by 4o#in.). 

Mrs. Hobson, of Markfield (51%in. by 4ofin.). 


155 


156 Appendix II 


LonpDon, THE RoyvaLt ACADEMY OF ARTS DIPLOMA 
GALLERY. 


Boy with Rabbit. 


EDINBURGH, THE NATIONAL GALLERY OF SCOT- 
LAND. 


Alexander Adam, LL.D. (49in. by 39in.). 

Alexander Bonar (30in. by 25in.). 

Mrs. Sarah Bonar (30in. by 25in.). 

Mrs. Christina Campbell of Ballimore (50in. by 
401n.). 

Lady Hume Campbell of Marchmont and Child 
(79in. by 6oin.). 

Major William Clunes (96in. by 60in.). 

Mrs. Justine Finlay of Glencorse (864in. by 
59}in.). | 

Dr. Gardiner (35in. by 26#in.). 

Mrs. Harriet Hamilton of Kames (94in. by 6o0in.). 

Mrs. Kennedy of Dunure (5o0in. by 4oin.)- 

George Kinnear (344in. by 27in.). 

Mrs. George Kinnear (344in. by 26in.). 

Lieut. Colonel Lyon (35in. by 26#in.). 

Colonel Alastair Macdonell of Glengarry (96in. by 
6o0in.). 

Mrs. R. Scott Moncrieff (30in. by 25in.). 

Lord Newton (30in. by 25in.). 

Sir Henry Raeburn, R.A. (36in. by 28in.). 

Henry Raeburn on a Grey Pony (panel) (14in. 
by toin.). 

Adam Rolland of Gask (78in. by 6oin.). 

John Smith of Craigend (30in. by 25in.). 

John Wauchope, W.S. (30in. by 25in.). 

Study of a Dog (27}in. by 354in.). 

A Gentleman (not identified) (oval miniature on 
parchment) (1fin. by 14in.). 


PICTURES ON LOAN. 


Mrs. Robert Bell (30in. by 25in.). 
Lady Carnegie (934in. by 6oin.) 


Appendix II 157 


Jas. Hamilton, Sen., M.D. (30in. by 25in.). 

William, Sixth Marquis of Lothian. 

Mrs. Colin Mackenzie of Portmore (5o0in. by 4oin.). 

Sir John Sinclair, of Ulbster, Bart. (934in. by 
6oin.). 

Rev. Sir Henry Moncrieff Wellwood, Bart. (49}in. 
by 4oin.). 


EDINBURGH, THE Roya SCOTTISH ACADEMY. 


Mr. Pitcairn (30in. by 25in.). 
Mrs. Pitcairn (30in. by 25in.). 


EDINBURGH, THE ScotTisH NATIONAL PORTRAIT 
GALLERY. 


Sir Francis Chantrey, R.A. Three pencil outlines 
on paper (a pencil portrait of Raeburn by 
Chantrey on the reverse) (1o#in. by 6#in.). 

Professor Andrew Dalzel (494in. by 39in.). 

Neil Gow (484in. by 384in.). 

Francis Horner, M.P. (30in. by 24in.). 

Robert Montgomery, Advocate (484in. by 384in.). 

Professor Dugald Stewart (30in. by 25in.). 

Professor John Wilson (93in. by 58in.). 


PICTURES ON LOAN. 


Professor Thos. Reid (294in. by 25in.). 


DUBLIN, THE NATIONAL GALLERY OF IRELAND. 
David, Eleventh Earl of Buchan (30in. by 25in.). 
A Soldier (49in. by 39in.). 


DUNDEE, THE ALBERT INSTITUTE AND VICTORIA 
GALLERIES. 
Mrs. Moir of Leckie, Stirlingshire (33in. by 26in.). 


158 Appendix II 


GLasGow, THE ART GALLERIES. 
Alex. Campbell of Hallyards (30in. by 25in.). 
Mrs. Ann Campbell (30in. by 25in.). 
Colin Campbell of Park (30in. by 25in.). 
Mrs. Elizabeth Campbell (30in. by 25in.). 
Mrs. General Campbell (30in. by 25in.). 
John Campbell, Sen., of Morriston (30in. by 25in.). 
Mungo Campbell of Hundleshope (30in. by 25in.). 
Robert N. Campbell of Kailzie (30in. by 25in.). 
Mr. and Mrs. Robert N. Campbell, of Kailzie 
(952zin. by 6o}in.). 
— Campbell (30in. by 25in.). 
Robert Cleghorn, M.D. (30in. by 25in.). 
Colonel Gordon of Aitkenhead (30in. by 25in.). 
William Jamieson, Jun. (30in. by 25in.). 
George McIntosh (30in. by 25in.). 
William Mills (30in. by 25in.). 
William Urquhart (30in. by 25in.). 
Mrs. William Urquhart (30in. by 25in.). 
A Gentleman (not identified) (30in. by 25in.). 


LrEEps, THE City ART GALLERY. 
Charles James Fox (50in. by 41in.). 


LIVERPOOL, THE WALKER ART GALLERY. 


ON LOAN. 
Adam Rolland of Gask (73in. by 594in.). 
MANCHESTER, THE CiTy ART GALLERY. 
Alexander, Fourth Duke of Gordon (30in. by 
25in.). 
Alexander Campbell (294in. by 244#in.). 
Mrs. Shafto Clarke and Daughter (49}in. by 


394in.). 
NotTTINGHAM, CiTy MusEUM AND ART GALLERY. 
A Lady (not identified) (384in. by 254in.). 
PortT SUNLIGHT, LADY LEVER ART GALLERY. 
Mrs. Peat and two Daughters (49}4in. by 314 in.). 








‘iii 





